Delhi District Court
State vs Bhanu Raghav on 31 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. DLNT01-001690-2015)
FIR No. 129/2015
Police Station Alipur
Charge sheet filed 302/34 IPC
Under Section
Charge framed Under 302/34 IPC
Section
1. Bhanu Raghav S/o Sh.
Hanumant Singh Raghav
R/o House no. B-1/53, Street
no. 3, Sant Nagar, Burari,
State Vs. Delhi.
2. Mohit Pal
S/o Sh. Jai Singh
R/o House no 22, Dhakka
Village Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
Date of institution 07.07.2015
Arguments concluded on 14.05.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 31.05.2025
Decision Acquitted
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 1 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:00:17 +0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that in the morning of 05.02.2015 at about 05.35 AM, DD No. 8A was registered at PS Alipur from Control Room to the effect that " GTK Road, Bhakatawar Pur Road, Near Shiv Farm House photographer ko chaku maar diya." The DD entry was marked to SI Dhirendra, who alongwith Ct. Ajit went to the place of occurrence i.e., Shiv Farm House where they came to know that injured had already been taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela by PCR Van. Blood stains were found at the spot in the parking as well as umbrella type structure of the said farm house. Thereafter, SI Dhirendra left Ct. Ajit at the place of occurrence and went to SRHC Hospital where doctor had informed that the injured had expired. At the hospital, SI Dhirendra met eye witness Virender. 1.2 At about 06.45 AM, SI Dhirendra informed duty officer at PS Alipur that injured had been declared brought dead by the doctor and duty officer ASI Rajender Singh registered DD No. 10A to this effect. After receipt of DD no. 10A, IO Inspector Mahabir Singh alongwith HC Parveen, Ct. Attar Singh reached Hospital and collected MLC no. 371/15 of Raj Kumar. There IO met eye witness Virender Kumar and SI Dhirendra. Thereafter, IO alongwith his staff and Virender Kumar went to the spot where blood was found scattered at many places near hut type structure near the rear side gate of the farm house. Ct. Ajit was also present at the spot as he had been deployed by SI Dhirendra to guard the spot. Crime team inspected the spot and photographs of the place of incident were also taken. 1.3 IO recorded statement of eye witness Virender Kumar who alleged SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 2 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:00:22 +0530 in his statement that on 04.02.2015, he had come to Shiv Farm House, Bakhtawarpur Road alongwith deceased Raj Kumar for videography and photography of the marriage function of Hans Nain i.e. from bridegroom side. He further alleged that from the bride side, photographer Bhanu Raghav alongwith his two associates namely Mohit and CCL 'M' came there for videography and photography of the marriage function. He alleged that around 2.00 am, some quarrel took place between deceased Raj Kumar and Bhanu Raghav, Mohit and CCL 'M'. Thereafter, at around 5.00 am in the morning when he alongwith Raj Kumar reached near their Maruti 800 car bearing No. DL-9CE-2055 in the parking of the said farm house, Bhanu Raghav called Raj Kumar and threatened him to kill him. CCL 'M' and Mohit Pal caught hold of Raj Kumar and Bhanu Raghav caused injury on the chest of Raj Kumar with some sharp edged weapon. On seeing blood oozing out from the chest of Raj Kumar, accused Bhanu Raghav alongwith his associates fled away from there in black colour Alto car. He further stated that he called at 100 number. PCR took the injured Raj Kumar to the hospital where doctors declared him brought dead.
1.4 During investigation, on the same day accused Bhanu Raghav was arrested on the identification of complainant. The black colour Alto car bearing no. DL-9CP-7137 of accused Bhanu Raghav was also seized and was found registered in the name of accused Bhanu Raghav. Subsequently, accused Mohit was arrested around 08:15 PM on the same day. Clothes of accused Bhanu Raghav, worn by him at the time of incident, were also seized. Three buttons of the shirt of accused Bhanu Raghav were also recovered at the instance of accused from the spot. Scaled site plan of the spot was prepared. Exhibits were sent to FSL. DVDs of the marriage function were seized.
1.5 IO got inspected the car through a forensic expert and a blood
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 3 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.05.31
17:00:26 +0530
stain was detected on its steering. CCL 'M' was also apprehended and a final report against him was filed by the IO before Juvenile Justice Board. 1.6 Weapon of offence i.e. knife could not be recovered despite best efforts. The chargesheet was filed before the court under section 302/34 IPC. Supplementary chargesheet was filed after receipt of FSL result.
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 11.09.2015, charge under section 302/34 IPC was framed against accused Bhanu Raghav and Mohit Pal. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 32 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES 4.1 PW1 Inspector Mahesh Kumar, being draughtsman, exhibited the scaled site plan of the place of incident i.e. Shiv Farm House, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi as Ex. PW-1/A. 4.2 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that on 15.04.2014, when he visited the place of occurrence, the same was not cordoned off. He stated that the relevant facts were pointed out by eye witness Virender. He stated that there were two gates for entry and exit from the said farm house. He denied that no marriage/function used to be performed in the said farm house.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 4 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:00:30 +0530
5. PW2 Dr. Mukesh Bharti has exhibited MLC no. 371/15 of patient namely Raj Kumar as Ex. PW-2/A.
6. PW3 Gurcharan Dass has identified the dead body of deceased Raj Kumar vide identification statement which is Ex. PW-3/A and has also exhibited receipt of handing over of dead body as Ex. PW-3/B.
7. PW4 Lachman Dass has identified the dead body of deceased Raj Kumar vide identification statement which is Ex. PW-4/A. 8.1 PW5 Dr. Jatin Bodwal conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased and proved his report as Ex. PW-5/A. He opined cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury no. 1 caused by sharp edged weapon which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further opined that injury No.1 was ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration and time since death was about 6 hours to 12 hours. He deposed that he had taken blood of deceased on gauze piece and handed over the clothes of deceased alongwith gauze piece to the IO with the seal of JB10. 8.2 In his cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that by sharp edged weapon he meant knife or any other weapon similar to knife i.e. dagger, buttondar knife, vegetable cutting knife. He denied the suggestion that key of a house or key of a car would cause such type of injury as mentioned in postmortem report. He stated that death occurred 6-12 hours prior to the postmortem examination.
9.1 PW9 Narender Singh deposed that he received notice u/s 91 Cr. PC which is Ex. PW-9/A from the police after two days of incident and he SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 5 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:00:35 +0530 gave reply to the said notice which is Ex. PW-9/A1. He also handed over the copy of booking receipt which is Ex. PW-9/B stating that he had engaged Raghav Studio for the photography and videography of his daughter's marriage. He further deposed that accused Bhanu Raghav alongwith one more associate was present from Raghav Studio for the videography and photography. He deposed that he gave Rs. 20,000/- as advance for the same and has proved the copy of the said receipt as Ex. PW-9/C. 9.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that he had not disclosed to IO that accused Bhanu Raghav came for photography and videography with his two associates.
10. PW10 ASI Sukhram Pal, being the duty officer, exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. PW10/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex PW10/B and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/C. 11.1 PW12 Dinesh @ Tinku deposed that he used to work as Part time Manager at Shiv Farm House only on the days when marriages were scheduled there and on the day of marriage, his employer Sanjeev Bhatnagar used to give him the details of the parties.
11.2 He further deposed that on 04.02.2015, marriage of Anshu and Hans Nain was scheduled at the aforesaid farm house which was booked by father of bride Sh. Narender Singh Pawar. He deposed that after dinner, the couple and their near relatives from both sides and photographers from both sides went to Kothi inside the farm house for phera ceremony. He deposed that Sh. Sanjeev Bhatnagar (PW11) left the farm house at around 03-3.15 am. He deposed that he also came to his office situated at the farm house for sleeping as he was not feeling well. He further deposed that at around 5.00 pm, he came SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 6 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:00:38 +0530 to know about the incident through the guard and when he went towards the parking area, behind the kothi, police officials were present there. He deposed that by that time, body of deceased had already been taken to hospital by the police officials.
11.3 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that during investigation, IO had not called him to establish the identities of the photographers engaged by both sides. 11.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that police official had met him in his office at about 05:00 AM in the intervening night of marriage and thereafter, on 24.04.2015. He stated that police official had not demanded any CCTV footage either on the morning hours of 05.02.2015 or on 24.04.2015. He stated that he himself had not handed over any CCTV footage to IO and his employer Sh. Sanjeev Bhatnagar was the custodian of all the CCTV cameras/recordings.
12. PW13 Harkesh Kumar Madan deposed that he used to run a studio in the name of Radhika Studio. He deposed that Sh. Hanumant Singh Raghav handed over four video cassettes of the marriage function to him and he converted the said four cassettes in four DVDs which are Ex. PW-13/1 To Ex.
PW-13/4 and handed over the same to Hanumant Singh (PW14). He has proved the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him in this regard as Ex. PW-13/A. 13.1 PW14 Hanumant Singh, who happens to be father of accused Bhanu Raghav, deposed that he used to run a photo studio in the name of Raghav Studio. He further deposed that his son Bhanu Raghav had photographed and videographed the marriage ceremony of his neighbour's SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 7 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:00:42 +0530 daughter at Shiv Farm House. He deposed that after marriage function, he went to Harkesh Madan alongwith four video cassettes and he converted the same into four DVDs and handed over the same to IO which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW14/A. 13.2 He further deposed that during investigation of this case, he had taken Maruti Alto car bearing registration no. DL-9CP-7137 registered in the name of his son Bhanu Raghav, on superdari vide superdarinama which is Ex.
PW-14/B and proved the photographs of the said car as Ex P-14/A (colly).
14. PW21 ASI Rajender Singh has proved the attested copy of DD no. 10A vide which information regarding the death was received, which is Ex. PW-21/A.
15. PW25 Sh. Mahabir Prashad, Record Keeper at the office of Motor Licensing Officer, Transport Authority, deposed that as per record Alto car bearing registration no. DL-9CP-7137 has been found registered in the name of Bhanu Raghav S/o Hanumant Singh Raghav on 05.10.2006 and has proved the particulars of the said car as Ex. PW-25/B. He has also proved his authorization letter for deposing in the court as Ex. PW-25/A.
16. PW26 ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 05.02.2015 at about 5.25 am, a call was received that a photographer was stabbed at opposite Shiv Farm House. He further deposed that he sent the said information on net for necessary action. He has proved PCR form which is Ex. PW-26/A.
17. PW27 ASI Balbir, being the Special Messenger delivered the copies of FIR to Ld. CMM, concerned DCP and Joint CP at their respective SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 8 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:00:46 +0530 offices.
MATERIAL WITNESSES 18.1 PW6 Amar Singh deposed that he was deployed as a guard at Shiv Farm House and he joined the same 1-1.5 months prior to 06.02.2015. He further deposed that the farm house was owned by Sh. Sanjeev Bhatnagar and ordinarily, his duty hours were from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm but on the day of any function in the farm house, he used to remain on duty till the completion of the function.
18.2 He further deposed that on 04.02.2015, there was a marriage function at the farm house. The bride side was from Burari Delhi whereas the bridegroom side was from UP. He further deposed that the vidai of the bride took place on or about 05.00 am and the guest had also left the said farm house from back gate. He further deposed that he took a round at the main gate and when he reached near the hut situated at the back gate of the farm house, he saw one person was taking care ( sambhal raha tha) of an injured person. He further deposed that he enquired from the person, who was taking care of injured about the incident and the person informed him that the photographer from the bride side had given a knife blow to the photographer from the bridegroom side. He further deposed that he saw blood oozing out from the chest of said injured photographer. After 10-15 minutes, PCR van reached there and took injured as well as the accompanying person to the hospital. He further deposed that when he reached at the main gate of the farm house, he saw one black colour Alto car parked in the parking area of said farm house near the hut. He further deposed that one white colour Maruti car was also parked at some distance of the said Alto car. After taking a round, when he again reached near the main gate, the aforesaid Alto car was found missing but SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 9 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:00:51 +0530 the Maruti car was still parked there. He further deposed that Sanjeev Bhatnagar as well as other catering staff had left the farm house around 3-3.30 am and one Manager namely Dinesh @ Tinku was present on duty and he (Amar Singh) had informed him about all these facts. 18.3 In his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that no attendance register was maintained at the said farm house during the relevant period. He stated that he was appointed as Security Guard by Sh. Sanjeev Bhatnagar himself. He stated that he and Sanjeev Bhatnagar were never called at police station together during investigation. He stated that he was having his mobile phone at that time but he did not call the police at 100 number despite the condition of the injured. The police officials who reached at the place of occurrence did not ask him to stay back at the said place. He stated that police did not obtain his signature on any document or memo. Police did not prepare any rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Police officials did not take any photograph of the place of occurrence on that night. He added that photographs were taken by the police after three hours when he had seen the injured person. He could not tell as to who had shifted the injured person to said PCR van. He admitted that IO did not record statement of Manager Dinesh @ Tinku in his presence. Manager Dinesh had not visited the place of occurrence in his presence. He admitted that the person who was taking care of the injured had not disclosed his name or addressed to him. He had not seen as to who drove the said Alto car from the parking area and who was the owner of the said car. He admitted that he did not personally meet photographers from both sides who were present in the marriage. He denied that he is a planted witness or that he was not present at the said farm house at the relevant time. He denied that he had not seen any injured person or any person taking care of him.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 10 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:01:09 +0530 18.4 In his cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that his appointment was meant for security of the said farm house so that no unauthorized person could trespass into the same. He admitted that there were rice mills, factory and general stores as well as tea stall behind the back gate of the said farm house. He admitted that the tea stall used to remain open round the lock and workers from vicinity used to visit the said tea stall even during late night hours. He admitted that there were trees at the end of said farm house i.e. near Gate no. 3 and some of the trees were fruit bearing trees. He could not admit or deny the fact that sometimes, some trespassers used to enter the farm house for plucking fruits by taking advantage of darkness. He admitted that no street lights were installed on the front road and adjoining road of farm house at that time. He admitted that during foggy nights, there was no clear visibility in the said area. He admitted that there was slight fog on the day of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that fog was so dense that the visibility was very poor on that night. He could not tell the name of the police officers who reached at the spot after the injured was shifted to the hospital by PCR.
19.1 PW7 Virender Kumar deposed that he is a photographer by profession and deceased Raj Kumar was working with him as Videographer.
He further deposed that on 04.02.2015, he had been engaged as Photographer in the marriage ceremony from the groom side and the said marriage ceremony took place at Shiv Farm, Bakhtawarpur Road, Alipur. He deposed that Raj Kumar had also accompanied him in the said marriage ceremony to videograph the said ceremony. He deposed that accused Bhanu Raghav was the photographer and accused Mohit was the videographer engaged from the bride side. He deposed that one 'M' was also assisting accused Bhanu Raghav SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 11 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:01:13 +0530 in the photography in the said marriage. He further deposed that while Jaimala ceremony was taking place, accused Bhanu Raghav came in front of camera being used by Raj Kumar and also gave a push to Raj Kumar. Thereafter, PW7 intervened and got the matter resolved. He deposed that after the vidai of bride at about 5.00-5.15 am, he alongwith Raj Kumar went to the parking of aforesaid Farm House where accused Bhanu Raghav came from behind and called Raj Kumar. When Raj Kumar went near accused Bhanu Raghav, he uttered in loud voice "raat ko bahut bol raha tha tu, tera kar du kaam tamaam ". When Raj Kumar tried to enquire from accused Bhanu Raghav, he inflicted blow with some sharp edged object on left side of the chest of Raj Kumar and thereafter, accused Bhanu Raghav, accused Mohit and CCL 'M' fled away from there in Alto car parked in the said parking area.
19.2 On a specific question by the court, he stated that at the time when accused Bhanu Raghav had given blow to Raj Kumar, accused Mohit was holding hands of Raj Kumar and CCL 'M' had caught hold of the neck of Raj Kumar while standing on the back side of Raj Kumar, embracing his both the hands around the neck of Raj Kumar.
19.3 He further deposed that he rushed towards Raj Kumar, who had already fallen down on to the floor and he tried to lift Raj Kumar and at that time, Raj Kumar had told him that he was stabbed by accused Bhanu Raghav. He deposed that Raj Kumar was bleeding profusely from his chest and thereafter, he became unconscious. He further deposed that he made call at 100 number and PCR Van reached at the spot and PCR Officials took Raj Kumar in PCR Van to SRHC Hospital, Narela. He also accompanied Raj Kumar in the said PCR Van. He further deposed that concerned doctors declared Raj Kumar brought dead.
19.4 He further deposed that he had accompanied IO and other police
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 12 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:01:18 +0530
officials to the farm house where his statement which is Ex. PW7/A was recorded. Crime Team took the photographs of the place of occurrence and inspected the spot. He further deposed that he had accompanied IO to the residence of the bride at Sant Nagar, Burari where they met father of bride. He deposed that father of bride firstly led them to the Photo Studio of accused Bhanu Raghav but it was found closed and thereafter, father of bride led them to the house of accused Bhanu Raghav but he was not found present there. He deposed that he again visited the house of accused Bhanu Raghav but he was not present there but when they had just came out of the street, they saw one Alto Car of black colour coming from the opposite side on the said road and he pointed out towards the said car by stating that it was probably the same car in which accused persons had fled away from the place of occurrence. 19.5 He further deposed that the said car was got stopped by the IO and accused Bhanu Raghav, who was driving the said car, was apprehended on his identification. He further deposed that during interrogation, accused Bhanu Raghav confessed his involvement in the commission of murder of Raj Kumar and he took them to his house. Accused Bhanu Raghav took out his clothes worn by him at the time of incident and IO seized the same. He deposed that accused Mohit was also apprehended and thereafter, accused Bhanu Raghav and accused Mohit Pal led them to the place of commission of offence. 19.6 He further deposed that on the next day, he again joined the investigation and accused Bhanu Raghav led them to the place where he had thrown the weapon of offence i.e. knife but the knife could not be found. He deposed that he had handed over six photographs of the marriage function and three DVDs, to IO of the case and the same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/B. In the said six photographs, faces of both accused persons and CCL 'M' were visible. He correctly identify accused Bhanu SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 13 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:02:11 +0530 Raghav, accused Mohit, CCL 'M' and deceased Raj Kumar in the said photographs. He exhibited six photographs as Ex PW-7/C1 to Ex. PW-7/C6 and DVD of marriage function which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-7/B. In the photographs Ex. PW-7/C1 to Ex. PW-7/C3, face of accused Bhanu Raghav is visible and in photographs Ex. PW7/C1 and Ex. PW7/C2, face of Mohit is visible. He also proved the DVDs prepared by him as Ex. PW-7/D1 to Ex. PW-7/D3.
19.7 During his cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that IO had seized the black colour Alto car of accused Bhanu Raghav vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/F. He further stated that accused Bhanu Raghav was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-7/G, his personal search was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/H and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/J. He further stated that clothes of accused Bhanu Raghav were seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/K. He further stated that IO seized three buttons of the shirt of accused Bhanu Raghav vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/L. 19.8 During the cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav and accused Mohit Pal, he admitted that in DVD Ex. PW-7/D-1, only verbal exchange could be heard and faces of the persons involved in conversation cannot be seen. He admitted that IO never called him for taking his voice sample and voice sample of any other person was also not taken in his presence. He admitted that he handed over the DVDs and photographs to the IO after around three months and stated that the same were given at a later stage as the process of videography, editing and developing the photographs took time. He admitted that when the DVDs were played in the court, it did not show the date and time of its shoot. He stated that 2-3 PCR van officials had removed injured Raj Kumar inside the PCR van from the place of SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 14 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:02:18 +0530 occurrence. He stated that he did not help them as he was suffering a fracture in his right hand and plates were inserted in his right hand. He stated that when Raj Kumar had fallen due to the injuries received him, he tried to help him by his left arm.
19.9 He stated that no written notice under section 91 CrPC was served upon him by the investigating agency to produce the DVD. He stated that on 05.02.2015 when he alongwith IO and accused persons visited the said Farm House, only one search light was used and 3-4 police officials were searching the buttons in the said farm house. He stated that when police officials were making efforts for the search of said buttons, accused Bhanu Raghav was standing in custody near the place of recovery of buttons whereas accused Mohit Pal was standing in custody of one police official at some distance. He stated that when police officials were making search for the buttons inside the farm house, no person belonging to said farm house was available there.
19.10 He stated that PCR van reached the place of occurrence within 15- 20 minutes from the time when he made a call at 100 number. He stated that 2- 3 PCR van officials had removed injured Raj Kumar inside the PCR Van. He stated that after the occurrence, he raised noise but none had heard said noise and thereafter, he immediately made a call at number 100. He stated that he reached to Raj Kumar for providing help and after holding Raj Kumar for about 2-3 minutes, he made him to lie on the ground and raised noise for help.
He stated that Raj Kumar was bleeding profusely at that time, however, the blood did not smear either his wearing clothes or even his shoes at that time. 19.11 He stated that he could not made efforts to ensure that the blood oozing out from body of Raj Kumar was stopped as he got frightened and perturbed at that time. He stated that apart from his left hand, no other part of SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 15 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:02:21 +0530 his body had touched the body of Raj Kumar when he was holding him. He stated that they had reached hospital in PCR van within 15-20 minutes after leaving the spot and upon asking by the doctor, he stated name and parentage of Raj Kumar. He stated that he remained in the hospital for about one hour and by that time, family members of Raj Kumar had not reached there. He stated that the factum of death of Raj Kumar was informed to him by the concerned doctor, after about 10 minutes of their arrival there. 19.12 He further stated that after falling down of Raj Kumar, some blood had spread on the ground, however, he had no idea as to in how much area the blood had spread. He stated that in his presence, IO had not called either the chowkidar or any other employee or the owner of the said farm house when he was carrying out investigation at the spot. He stated that at that time, no person by the name of Amar came across him in his presence. He stated that he had not chased the accused persons after the occurrence. He stated that they had come to the marriage function in the Maruti car belonging to Raj Kumar and he had not made any efforts to take injured to Raj Kumar to any hospital in the said Maruti car. He stated that he did not know as to who and when the said car of Raj Kumar was taken away from the farm house and who had seized the wearing clothes of deceased Raj Kumar in the hospital. He admitted that buttons which were seized inside the farm house, were lifted by police official and same were not picked up by accused. 19.13 He further stated that no information was provided regarding accused Bhanu Raghav either by his father or any other nearby resident to IO when they had gone to his house in the morning of 05.02.2015. He stated that after apprehension of accused Bhanu Raghav, they had reached his house within 5-10 minutes or so. Two ladies and one male member were found present in the house at that time and IO did not ask them to witness the SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 16 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:02:25 +0530 recovery proceedings of clothes of accused Bhanu Raghav. He stated that police officials had searched at and near the place of occurrence in the morning hours of 05.02.2015 in his presence. He stated that IO did not ask him to hand over camera(s) through which he had taken photographs in the said marriage function. He admitted that IO did not seize any camera from or at the instance of accused Bhanu Raghav in his presence. He admitted that IO had not obtained any photograph of the said Alto car belonging to accused Bhanu Raghav in his presence. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav.
19.14 This witness was again recalled for cross examination and during cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that he had made a call at number 100 after the occurrence from his mobile phone No. 9899325745 within 5-7 minutes of the occurrence. He stated that incident took place during the night of winter season, there was no dense fog during the said night, however, there was fog on that night. He stated that he had not noticed, if any CCTV cameras were installed in the said farm house or not. He denied that since the marriage was over, the concerned person had switched off the lights of the farm house including the lights of the parking area. He stated that his clothes were not stained with blood.
19.15 During re-cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that IO had not seized any writing work from any PCR official in his presence. He denied that after the marriage ceremony, accused Bhanu Raghav had went to the home of bride for vidai ceremony.
20.1 PW23 Hans Kumar Nain deposed that he got married with Ms. Anshu on 04/05.02.2015 at Shiv Farm House, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi and he had hired photographer Virender Kumar who had photographed and videographed SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 17 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:02:29 +0530 his marriage function alongwith his associate Raj Kumar. He deposed that Virender Kumar and Raj Kumar remained at the marriage venue till about 4.45-5.00 am on 05.02.2015. He deposed that later he came to know that some quarrel had taken place between photographers of bride side and groom side and in that quarrel, Raj Kumar sustained injuries and later on expired.
20.2 He further deposed that on 21.04.2015, he was called at the police station by the IO and notice under section 91 Cr. PC which is Ex. PW-23/1 was given to him and he duly replied the same vide reply which is Ex. PW-23/1A. He further deposed that he had made advance payment of Rs. 6,000/- to the photographer Virender and the receipt in this regard had been seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW23/2.
20.3 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that no quarrel took place in the marriage function and the jaimala ceremony was solemnized in a peaceful manner.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION 21.1 PW8 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini has deposed that she alongwith her team members visited PS Alipur on 06.02.2015 at around 03.15 pm and there she examined the Maruti Alto car bearing registration no. DL-9CP-7137 and prepared her detailed report which is Ex. PW-8/A. 21.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, she stated that she had received a written request which is Ex. PW8/DA from police official of PS Alipur wherein a request was made to visit police station Alipur and to inspect the car. She stated that in her presence, IO had not prepared the seizure memo of gauze cloth piece containing the blood lifted from the steering of the car.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 18 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:02:33 +0530
22.1 PW11 Sanjeev Bhatnagar deposed that in the year 2015, he used
to run a farm house by the name of Shreeji Hospitality Shiv Farm House and had taken the aforesaid farm house on lease from its owner. He further deposed that on 14.02.2015, he received notice u/s 91 Cr. PC to which he replied which is Ex. PW11/A. He further deposed that he was one of the partner of the aforesaid farm house and Sh. Narender Singh Pawar had booked the said farm house for marriage function of his daughter Ms. Ashu with Hans for 04.02.2015. He further deposed that he had handed over the photocopies of the bill, agreement between him and Narender Singh, licence deed and copy of MCD licence. He has exhibited agreement between him and Narender Singh Pawar as Ex. PW11/B, copy of bill as Ex. PW11/C, copy of MCD slip as Ex. PW-11/D and copy of license deeds as Ex. PW11/E and Ex. PW11/F. 22.2 He further deposed that on the date of marriage i.e., in the intervening night of 04/05.02.2015 at about 03-3.30 am, when the parties went for phera ceremony, he left for his house and Manager Dinesh @ Tinku was on duty.
22.3 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that when he left the farm house on the date of marriage, guard Sh. Amar Singh was on duty on the gate of parking. 22.4 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that he got installed CCTV cameras only to cover the lawn, food space, kothi and halwai area and the cameras did not cover the parking area. He stated that there were three entry gates in the farm house at that time and all were having CCTV cameras at that time. He stated that IO had demanded the CCTV footage of the function but he had not handed over the same to him as IO had not served any written notice to him.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 19 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:02:37 +0530
23.1 PW15 ASI Ram Kumar, being Incharge Mobile Crime Team,
inspected the place of occurrence and prepared his crime team report which is Ex. PW-15/A. 23.2 During re-examination done on behalf of State, he admitted that in his report Ex. PW-15/A, he had mentioned at serial no. 3 that IO was directed to search the offenders namely Bhanu Raghav, Mohit and CCL 'M' as stated by complainant.
23.3 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he denied that he had added the writing at serial no. 3 later on in his report at the instance of IO.
24. PW16 Ct. Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 05.02.2015, he alongwith other crime team members visited the place of occurrence and on the instructions of PW15 ASI Ram Kumar, Incharge Crime Team, he took 17 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles which are Ex. PW16/B (colly) and negatives thereof are Ex. PW-16/A. 25.1 PW17 SI Gajender deposed that on 05.02.2015, he alongwith Inspector Mahabir, HC Parveen, Ct. Satish and complainant Virender went to Sant Nagar, Burari, 25 foota road for search of accused Bhanu Raghav. He further deposed that at around 06.15 pm, they saw one black colour Alto car coming from the side of main road and said car was being driven by accused Bhanu Raghav. He deposed that complainant Virender identified accused Bhanu Raghav as the person who had inflicted knife injury to Raj Kumar. 25.2 He further deposed that after apprehension, accused Bhanu Raghav was interrogated and arrested. Personal search of accused Bhanu Raghav was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. He deposed SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 20 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:02:41 +0530 that IO had seized the said Alto car bearing registration no. DL-9CP-7137. 25.3 He further deposed that accused got recovered one black colour shirt, one coat of black colour having red colour strip and one black colour pant from the back side of his house. He deposed that three buttons of the black colour shirt were found broken. He further deposed that IO had seized the said clothes of accused.
25.4 He further deposed that thereafter, at the instance of accused Bhanu Raghav, accused Mohit Pal was apprehended and complainant Virender identified him as one of the offender. After interrogation, accused Mohit Pal was arrested, his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. He further deposed that thereafter, both the accused persons led them to the place of occurrence at Shiv Farm House and accused Bhanu Raghav pointed out the place of occurrence firstly. He deposed that with the help of search light, three broken buttons of shirt of accused Bhanu Raghav were recovered from inside the grass of the said farm house which were seized by IO. He correctly identified that case property and accused persons during his deposition.
25.5 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that disclosure statement of accused Bhanu Raghav is in his handwriting which was recorded at the place of his arrest. It is stated that Alto car was being driven by Ct. Satish after the arrest of accused Bhanu Raghav upto police station Alipur. He stated that they had reached the house of accused Bhanu Raghav between 06:45-07:00 PM. He stated that IO had prepared the seizure memo of clothes of accused Bhanu Raghav in his house itself. He stated that he had not noticed any blood stains over the steering of Alto car after the apprehension of accused Bhanu Raghav. 25.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 21 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:02:45 +0530 stated that IO had not checked the IMEI number and working condition of mobile phone recovered from personal search of accused Mohit Pal. He stated that IO had not obtained CDR, CAF, Cell ID Location of said mobile phone which was recovered from the personal search of accused Mohit Pal in his presence. He stated that in his presence, IO had not enquired about the location of accused Mohit Pal on 04.02.2015 as well as 05.02.2015 and to whom he had made phone calls and from whom he had received the calls. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
26.1 PW32 IO Inspector Mahabir Singh deposed that on 05.02.2015, DD no. 8A regarding incident of stabbing at Shiv Farm House was received in the police station and the said DD was marked to SI Dhirendra. He further deposed that on the same day, DD no. 10A was received from SRHC Hospital regarding death of injured and the said DD was marked to him. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Attar Singh and HC Parveen reached SRHC Hospital where he met SI Dirender and eye witness Virender. SI Dhirendra produced MLC of injured to him. He alongwith SI Dhirendra, complainant Virender, HC Parveen and Ct. Atttar Singh went to the spot. He deposed that Virender led them to a hut constructed on the back gate of Shiv Farm House where Constable Ajit was already present. He further deposed that blood was found scattered near hut kind structure. He deposed that he recorded statement of witness Virender Kumar and thereafter, he called the crime team and photographs were taken of the scene of crime from different angles. He deposed that he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW-32/A and handed over the same to Ct. Attar Singh for registration of FIR. He deposed that he sent SI Dhirendra and Ct. Ajit to Raja Harish Chander Hospital to get the body preserved in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 22 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:02:50 +0530 26.2 He further deposed that he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant / eye witness Virender and proved the site plan as Ex. PW-32/B. He further deposed that earth control and blood in gauze were lifted from the spot and the same were converted into pullanda after being duly sealed. He further deposed that he made enquiries from Dinesh @ Tinku (Manager of the Shiv Farm House) who told him that the farm house was booked by Narender Singh for the marriage function of his daughter. He further deposed that he also made enquiries from Narender Singh, who told him that he engaged accused Bhanu Raghav from Raghav Studio. He further deposed that Narender Singh took them to the house of accused Bhanu Raghav at Sant Nagar, Burari but accused was neither found at his house or at his studio. 26.3 He further deposed that SI Dhirendra had produced exhibits of deceased to him and he seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-18/B. He deposed that he deposited the case property in malkhana. He deposed that he got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased. He deposed that he seized the exhibits which were handed over to him at the Mortuary vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/A. He deposed that prior to postmortem, he filled up inquest papers including brief facts, Form 25.35 B and proved the same as Ex. PW-32/C (colly).
26.4 He further deposed that on 05.02.2015 at around 5.30 pm, he constituted a team consisting of himself, SI Gajender, HC Parveen, Ct. Satish and eye witness. They again visited Sant Nagar, Burari at B Block, 25 foota Road, Sant Nagar, Burari near the house of accused Bhanu Raghav. He deposed that complainant Virender pointed out towards the Maruti Alto car of accused Bhanu Raghav and thereafter, they they stopped the car and apprehended accused Bhanu Raghav. He further deposed that accused was arrested vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/E and his personal search was SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 23 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:02:57 +0530 conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/H and disclosure statement of the accused was also recorded which is Ex. PW-7/J. 26.5 He further deposed that accused Bhanu Raghav led them to his house and got recovered his clothes i.e. black shirt, black trouser and black coat which he was wearing at the time of incident and said clothes were seized by the IO vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/K. He deposed that he also seized Alto car of the accused vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/F. PW32 further deposed that he noticed that upper three buttons of the shirt were missing ( shirt ke uper ke teen button tute hue the) and on enquiry, accused told him that the buttons got missing during the scuffle. He deposed that at the instance of accused Bhanu Raghav, they reached Labour Chowk alongwith accused Bhanu Raghav where he identified the accused Mohit Pal and accused Mohit Pal was also arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-7/M and his personal search was conducted vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/N. He deposed that disclosure statement of accused Mohit Pal was recorded vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/O. He further deposed that accused Bhanu Raghav led them to the place of incident and pointed out the place where the scuffle took place. He deposed that they searched the buttons with the help of search light and all the three buttons were recovered. Thereafter, the said buttons were seized and converted into parcel, duly sealed and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-7/L. 26.6 He further deposed that he moved an application before Director, FSL for inspection of the Alto car which is Ex. PW-32/D. He deposed that alongwith the report of FSL which is Ex. PW-8/A, some exhibits i.e. blood stains lifted from steering of the car were also handed over to him and the same were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-32/E. He further deposed that the weapon of offence could not be recovered despite best efforts and the JCL 'P' @ 'M' was also apprehended as the complainant Virender had SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 24 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:03:02 +0530 already deposed about his role in the incident.
26.7 He further deposed that he got prepared scaled site plan and sent the exhibits to FSL. He served notice to Narender Singh, Sanjeev, Hans Kumar Nain under section 91 Cr. PC which are Ex. PW-9/A, Ex. PW-32/F and Ex. PW-23/1. He seized the marriage card produced by Narender Singh vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-24/1 and proved the card as Ex. PW-32/G. 26.8 He further deposed that the complainant had produced three DVDs of the recording of the marriage function and six photographs and the same were seized vide memo which is Ex. PW-7/B. He also collected DVD regarding the marriage function covered by accused from the father of accused Hanumant Singh Raghav and seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-14/A. He further deposed that after completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the Hon'ble Court and he filed the FSL report through application which is Ex. PW-32/H. 26.9 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav and Mohit Pal, he stated that he had seen a DVD wherein presence of accused Bhanu Raghav and deceased was visible. He stated that he did not enquire as to how many photographers were hired by the family of bridegroom apart from deceased and eye witness Virender. He could not tell whether another team of one Sardarji was hired by the boy's family for the purpose of photography.
26.10 During cross examination, CD containing videography of the marriage was played and after seeing the same, he (PW32) stated that one Sardarji could be seen in the video holding a camera and he did not interrogate the Sardarji during investigation. He stated that neither he was told by anyone about Sardarji nor he enquired from anyone regarding his presence during the investigation.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 25 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:03:06 +0530
26.11 He could not tell, who had covered the vidai ceremony from the
house of bride. He denied that deceased had refused to come up at vidai function at the house of bride and same function was covered by accused at the house of the bride. He admitted that in the video CD, bridegroom could be heard "vidai yahan se nahi hogi". He stated that he did not examine father of bride on the aspect whether vidai took place from the house and he did not collect photograph of vidai of the bride. He stated that he never came to know during investigation the photographs/video taken by Sardarji. He admitted that sample voice of accused Bhanu Raghav and eye witness Virender were not taken during the investigation to compare the same with the voice recording available at the time of jaimala. He denied that conversation which was mentioned in the charge sheet was in respect with Sardarji, who was brought by eye witness Virender. He denied that all three gates of farm house were having CCTV cameras. He stated that he made enquiries from the owner of farm house regarding CCTV footage but it was told to him that no CCTV cameras were installed at the farm house. He denied that CCTV cameras were installed at farmhouse and the incident of stabbing was covered in the CCTV footage and Sardarji could be seen stabbing the deceased. He denied that he had thoroughly seen the CCTV footage and came to know that accused Bhanu Raghav had left the farmhouse to cover the vidai ceremony scheduled at bride's house.
26.12 He stated that he reached at the house of accused Bhanu Raghav at around 11:30 AM on the same day of incident. He denied that he reached at the house of accused at about 08:00-08:15 PM. He stated that he met one or two ladies at the house of accused Bhanu Raghav and he asked that lady to send accused to police station for enquiries. He could not tell whether those ladies had dialed number of Bhanu Raghav from her mobile phone and he stated SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 26 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:03:11 +0530 accused Bhanu Raghav to come to police station for interrogation through telephone. He stated that he never obtained CDR of mobile phone used by accused Bhanu Raghav. He denied that as per CDR record, location of accused Bhanu Raghav was at Hauz Khas when he visited his house and his location was seen at house of bride at 05:30 AM which continued upto 06:30 AM. 26.13 He admitted that house of accused was within jurisdiction of PS Burari but he did not inform the concerned police station about the apprehension/arrest of accused. He stated that he did not inform PS Burari with regard to seizure of car of accused Bhanu Raghav and he himself inspected the car and prepared the seizure memo of the car. He stated that there was no mention of any blood stain on steering and other parts of the car in seizure memo Ex. PW7/F. He stated that Ct. Satish took the car to police station and he did not state about any blood stain on the steering of the car. 26.14 He stated that his first visit to spot started at 07:15 AM till 10:30 AM and crime team reached at the spot at about 08:00 AM. He stated that he conducted cursory inspection the spot on his initial visit. Crime team also inspected the spot in his presence. He stated that on the same day at about 09:30 PM, he again visited the spot and the crime scene was not protected by any police official from 10:30 AM till 09:30 PM. He could not tell as to who all had visited the crime scene between 10:30 AM to 09:30 PM. He stated that crime scene was not cordoned off with any tape or any material after his departure around 10:30 AM.
26.15 He stated that accused Bhanu Raghav took them to the spot after his arrest and they reached there around 09:30 PM and accused Mohit Pal was also with them. He stated that one guard of the farmhouse was called by him at the time of proceedings conducted at farmhouse, however, he did not obtain signature of guard at the time of seizure of buttons recovered from the spot at SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 27 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:03:15 +0530 the instance of accused. He denied that if buttons were available at the spot, same could have been detected and recovered by him, other police officials and crime team at the time of spot inspection in the morning. 26.16 He admitted that spot where blood stains were found was covered with hexagon shaped cemented tiles. He stated that exact location of eye witness Virender and guard had not been shown in the scaled site plan or in naksha nazri. He stated that he received blood gauze sample of deceased after the postmortem at around 04:00-04:30 PM. He stated that car was recovered after deposit of blood gauze sample in malkhana. 26.17 He stated that during investigation, he never came to know that deceased and accused Bhanu Raghav were known to each other prior to incident. He denied that accused Bhanu Raghav had two identical shirts with him and he collected one shirt from his house and torn off three buttons from the same to falsely implicate him on the basis of false evidence. 26.18 He stated that accused Bhanu Raghav was not found in possession of any mobile at the time of his arrest. He denied that accused Bhanu Raghav was carrying a mobile and same was not seized by him deliberately after checking the same as there was call record qua receiving of call from his mother when he was at Hauz Khas. He stated that he did not conduct the forensic examination of the car of the deceased. 26.19 He denied that cameraman Sardarji was arranged by eye witness Virender as he was known to him and deceased Raj Kumar was annoyed with Sardarji as he was collecting the money thrown by guest at the function. He further denied that deceased Raj Kumar had an altercation with Sardarji on this account and deceased Raj Kumar was murdered by Sardarji and eye witness Virender deposed falsely against accused Bhanu Raghav to save Sardarji. 26.20 In addition, during cross examination done on behalf of accused SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 28 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:03:20 +0530 Mohit Pal, he admitted that in DD entry No. 8A it was mentioned that one photographer had been stabbed at GTK Road, Bakhtawarpur Road, Near Shiv Farm House and number of the informer was 9899325745 and the number belonged to eye witness Virender. He admitted that alleged eye witness did not disclose any name or physical description of the assailant involved in the incident as per content of DD No. 8A. He admitted that there was a tea stall near back gate of Shiv Farm House. He stated that he made enquiries from the chaiwala regarding the present case but his statement was not recorded as he was not an eye witness to the incident.
26.21 He stated that he did not meet the PCR officials at the hospital. No PCR official stated to him during investigation that deceased had stated to them enroute to hospital as to who had stabbed him. He stated that one mobile was recovered from the possession of accused Mohit when he was arrested. He stated that he did not obtain CDR and tower location of the mobile phone of accused Mohit. He stated that he did not obtain CDR of accused persons, eye witness Virender, other photographers/cameraman and deceased to verify the fact that they were present at the time of alleged murder. He admitted that presence of said persons including deceased was not visible/covered in the video at the spot. He denied that he had procured the tower location of accused Mohit but he did not place on record as his presence was somewhere else as per CDR.
26.22 He denied that there were four photographers engaged by the bridegroom's family including deceased, Virender, Sardarji and one more associate. He stated that he was not aware that all four photographers travelled in a white Maruti Car bearing No. DL 9CE 2055. He stated that said car was found parked in the parking lot when he reached at the spot. He did not seize the said car and no investigation was done as to who had parked the same over SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 29 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:03:25 +0530 there.
26.23 He admitted that clothes of eye witness Virender had no blood stains. He admitted that the persons, who were holding the deceased including accused Mohit Pal, had no blood stains on their clothes and they also had no injuries on their bodies. He stated that he did not seize clothes of accused Mohit Pal worn by him at the time of incident. He stated that he was not aware as to how deceased Raj Kumar and Virender had gone to marriage function. He stated that eye witness Virender did not disclose any reason as to why he did not shift deceased to hospital in his own car instead of waiting for PCR van.
He denied that car parked at the spot was belonging to Sardarji and he refused to shift the deceased to hospital and that is why PCR was called at the spot. He denied that deceased was murdered by Sardarji, close friend of eye witness Virender and Virender is a planted witness to save Sardarji. 26.24 He stated that he did not record statement of any guest, neighbour, bride, bridegroom or their families to ascertain whether the vidai ceremony was done at the farm house or at bride's home. He stated that he had deposited the inquest papers with the doctor around 02:00 PM. He denied that no FIR was registered till 03:00 PM and that is why proceedings were delayed without any explanation. He stated that he never verified the fact that accused Mohit was not an employee of accused Bhanu Raghav and he had no professional concern with the co-accused.
27.1 PW18 HC Parveen has deposed on the lines of IO Inspector Mahabir Singh. He exhibited seizure memo as Ex. PW18/A vide which exhibits i.e., blood with the help of gauze, blood stained cemented floor and control cemented floor were seized by IO. He also exhibited seizure memo as Ex. PW18/B vide which IO seized clothes of deceased alongwith sample seal.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 30 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.05.31
17:03:30 +0530
He identified the case property i.e. blood in gauze piece as Ex. P18/1, blood stained cemented floor as Ex. P18/2 and cemented floor as Ex. P18/3. 27.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that they reached at the house of Sh. Narender Singh at about 11:45 AM and IO had not obtained any document from Narender Singh in his presence. He stated that he and SI Gajender apprehended accused Bhanu Raghav. He stated that he met complainant Virender Kumar at about 05:30 PM on 05.02.2015 in the police station. He admitted that in his statement under section 161 CrPC, he stated to IO that after the apprehension of accused Bhanu Raghav, complainant had stated before them that accused Bhanu Raghav had caused injury with sharp (nukili) object over Raj Kumar. He denied that they had not noticed any blood stains over the clothes recovered at the instance of accused Bhanu Raghav. The key of the Alto Car was taken into possession by IO.
27.3 He stated that they reached at the house of accused Bhanu Raghav between 07:00-07:15 PM and his sister and mother were present there. He stated that IO had prepared the seizure memo of clothes in the house of accused Bhanu Raghav itself. He stated that he had not noticed any blood stains over the steering of Alto car after the apprehension of accused Bhanu Raghav. He stated that during the day time, while they were present at the spot, they had inspected the place of occurrence minutely. He admitted that even after inspecting the place of occurrence minutely, no buttons were found at or near the place of occurrence.
27.4 He stated that he had not noticed any blood stains over the wearing clothes of complainant Virender when he met them in the hospital or even thereafter. He stated that in his presence, Virender Kumar has not disclosed to IO that he had sustained any fracture over any of his arm. He SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 31 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:03:55 +0530 stated that in his presence, IO had not made any enquiry/investigation in respect of mobile number of complainant. He stated that place of apprehension of accused Bhanu Raghav was 100-200 meters away from his house and his family members were not called prior to his arrest. He further stated that in his presence, IO has not seized the camera or any other equipment from complainant. He stated that in his presence, IO neither recorded statement of owner or any of the official of Shiv Farm House nor seized CCTV footage from Shiv Farm House nor seized the attendance register or any other documents from the said farm house.
27.5 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he denied that in the morning hours of 05.02.2015, police officials of PS Alipur had apprehended 4-5 persons in connection with present case and brought them to police station. He further denied that on 05.02.2015 at about 08:30 AM, Inspector Mahavir had brought accused Mohit Pal to police station for enquiry purpose. He stated that in his presence, IO had not checked the IMEI number, SIM card number installed in mobile phone make Nokia and its working which was recovered from the personal search of accused Mohit Pal. He denied that firstly IO Inspector Mahavir went inside the Shiv Farm House and thereafter, accused persons were taken inside. He denied all the remaining suggestions put on behalf of accused Mohit Pal.
28.1 PW19 SI Dhirendra deposed that in the intervening night of 04/05.02.2015 at about 05.35 am, DD no. 8A was marked to him and he alongwith Ct. Ajit went to the place of occurrence. He further deposed that injured had already been taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela by PCR Van. He deposed that blood stains were found at the spot near the parking as well as umbrella type structure of the said farm house. He deposed that he left Ct. Ajit SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 32 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:03:59 +0530 at the place of occurrence and went to SRHC Hospital where doctor had informed that the injured had expired. He deposed that at the hospital, he met complainant Virender. He deposed that Inspector Mahabir Singh, HC Parveen and Ct. Attar Singh also reached at the hospital. Further, he has deposed on the lines of PW32 Inspector Mahabir Singh. He exhibited seizure memo as Ex. PW19/A vide which pullanadas collected by Ct. Ajit from Autopsy Surgeon was seized.
28.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he admitted that in DD No. 8A which is Ex. PW19/DA it has not been mentioned that injured had been taken to SRHC Hospital by PCR Van. He stated that till the time, he remained at the spot or reached at hospital, he had not received any call from the hospital. He admitted that in MLC, there was no mention of Sh. Virender to the effect that either he had brought the injured to hospital or met the treating doctor in hospital. He admitted that statement of Virender is in his handwriting and not in handwriting of Inspector Mahavir. He admitted that crime team officials had inspected the place of occurrence minutely and thereafter, exhibits were lifted from the spot on the instructions of crime team.
28.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that he stated that he had not met any PCR van GTK Road Bakhtawarpur Road, Near Shiv Farm House when he reached there and he had not met any public person at the said place. He stated that at the corner of Shiv Farm House, he met one tea vendor and upon inquiry, he informed him about the place of occurrence to be the parking area of Shiv Farm House. He stated that he had not disclosed to IO about the said tea vendor nor he himself had recorded the statement of said tea vendor. He stated that he found PCR van present in the parking area of hospital but he had not made any enquiry from SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 33 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:04:04 +0530 any of the PCR official, who had brought the injured to hospital as well as to ascertain as to who had accompanied the injured to hospital. He stated that he had not met any person by the name of Sh. Hanumant Raghav during the investigation. He denied that he met Sh. Hanumant Raghav at about 07:30 AM at house of accused Bhanu Raghav and took him to all the places i.e., Bandwala, Ghoriwala, Waiter etc. He further denied that they took Hanumant Raghav at the house of accused Mohit Pal at Dhaka Chowk. He further denied that they had made a call from the phone of Hanumant Raghav to accused Mohit Pal and called him at the spot and thereafter, they took accused Mohit Pal at police station.
29.1 PW20 Ct. Ajit Singh deposed that on 05.02.2015 at about 5.35 AM, on receipt of DD No. 8A, he alongwith SI Dhirendra reached at Shiv Farm House, Bhaktawar Pur, Delhi and on the back side of said farm house in parking area, blood was found lying. He further deposed that injured had already been shifted to SRHC Hospital by PCR. He deposed that SI Dhirendra left him at the spot to preserve the same and he went to SRHC Hospital. He further deposed that at about 8.00 AM, Inspector Mahabir Singh alongwith SI Dhirendra, HC Praveen, Ct. Attar Singh and complainant Virender Kumar came at the spot. He deposed that Crime team also reached at the spot and inspected the spot. He deposed that IO Inspector Mahabir prepared rukka on the statement of complainant Virender Kumar and handed over the same to Ct. Attar Singh for registration of FIR. He deposed that he alongwith SI Dhirendra went to SRHC Hospital and shifted the dead body of Raj Kumar to mortuary of BJRM Hospital from SRHC Hospital.
29.2 He further deposed that after postmortem of the body of the deceased Raj Kumar, doctor handed over two pullandas in sealed condition to SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 34 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:04:08 +0530 him which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-19/A. 29.3 He admitted that doctor had also handed over a sample seal to him and he handed over the same to the IO.
29.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he admitted that information given by DD No. 8A was " GTK Road, Bhakatawar Pur Road, Near Shiv Farm House photographer ko chaku maar diya". He admitted that IO did not enquire regarding this case from any person at the corner of Shiv Farm House in his presence. He stated that he did not observe any factory or tea stall outside the back gate of Shiv Farm House. He stated that in his presence no exhibits were lifted from the spot. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
29.5 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that he was alone at the spot from 06:00 AM to 08:00 AM and he had not seen any employee/guard or any other person at Shiv Farm House. He stated that when he alongwith SI Dhirendra reached at the spot, he had not seen Virender. He stated that he has seen two vehicles i.e., one black and one white at the parking area. Those vehicles were there in the parking area till he remained at the spot. He stated that IO Inspector Mahavir recorded the statement of Virender in his handwriting. He stated that he did not observe any CCTV Camera installed at Shiv Farm House.
30.1 PW 22 HC Deepak, PCR Official, deposed that on 05.02.2015 at about 5.28 am, on receipt of call, he reached at Shiv Farm House, Bhaktawarpur Road where injured Raj Kumar was found in injured condition. He further deposed that he made enquiries from complainant Virender who informed him that some quarrel had taken place on the issue of photography and Raj Kumar had been stabbed in that quarrel. He deposed that injured Raj SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 35 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:04:12 +0530 Kumar was shifted to SRHC Hospital in PCR Van and complainant Virender had also accompanied them. He deposed that injured Raj Kumar was declared brought dead by the concerned doctors.
30.2 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that it took 2-3 minutes to reach at the place of occurrence. He admitted that the statement given by injured Raj Kumar and complainant Virender Kumar were written in the PCR register. He admitted that the statement given by the injured and complainant Virender Kumar was written in PCR register and same was forwarded to Police Control Room through wireless.
30.3 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that he did not find any blood stain on the clothes and body of Virender. He stated that nobody was found present at the site of incident from the side of public as well as police when they left the spot for hospital.
He stated that he found the car in the parking near the crime scene.
31.1 PW24 Ct. Satish deposed that on 23.02.2015, he had deposited nine sealed pullandas in FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 21/21/15 after collecting the same from MHC (M).
31.2 He further deposed that on 21.04.2015, he joined the investigation and on that day, PW23 Hans Kumar Nain came to the police station and IO had interrogated him. He further deposed that Hans Kumar Nain handed over a cash memo regarding booking of a photographer to the IO which was seized by the IO vide memo which is Ex. PW-23/2.
31.3 He further deposed that on 28.04.2015, he again joined investigation alongwith IO and accompanied him to Sant Nagar, Burari to the house of Narender Singh and Narender Singh handed over a wedding card of SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 36 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:04:16 +0530 his daughter Anshu with PW23 Hans Kumar Nain, which was solemnized on 04.02.2015 at Shiv Farm House, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi. The said marriage card was seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-24/1 and has proved the wedding card as Ex. PW-24/Article1.
31.4 He further deposed that on 02.05.2015, he again joined the investigation of this case and on that day, Sh. Hanumant Singh Raghav had come to the police station and handed over four DVDs which were seized by the IO. He further deposed that on 04.05.2015, complainant Virender had handed over six photographs and three DVDs to the IO which were also seized by the IO.
32.1 PW28 ASI Attar Singh deposed that on 05.02.2015 on receipt of DD no. 10A, he alongwith Inspector Mahabir and HC Parveen reached at SRHC Hospital where SI Dhirendra and eye witness Virender met them. He deposed that SI Dhirendra handed over MLC of deceased Raj Kumar. He deposed that he alongwith Inspector Mahabir, HC Parveen, SI Dhirendra and Virender came at the spot where Ct Ajit met them. Crime team inspected the spot. IO made enquiries from complainant Virender and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him. He deposed that after registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. 32.2 During his cross examination done on behalf of accused Bhanu Raghav, he stated that in the hospital, Virender had informed to be an eye witness but his statement was recorded at the spot at about 09:10 or 09:12 AM in presence of crime team. He stated that IO had not prepared the rukka at the hospital.
32.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Mohit Pal, he stated that Inspector Mahavir had conducted enquiry from the Farm House SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 37 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:04:21 +0530 staff and name of Narender was revealed, however, he could not tell the name of that staff, who revealed the name of Narender. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
33. PW29 Sh. Kaushlendra Kumar Chaudhari, Junior Scientific Officer from FSL, Rohini has proved the FSL report dated 23.12.2015 prepared by Dr. S.S. Badwal which is Ex. PW-29/A.
34. PW30 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay, Senior Scientific Officer from FSL deposed that the exhibits were received on 23.02.2015 in FSL in sealed condition and same were marked to her for examination. She further deposed that after examination, she prepared report alongwith Allellic Data which is Ex. PW-30/A. 35.1 PW31 HC Ashwani Kumar being the MHC(M) exhibited entry in this regard at serial no. 73 as Ex. PW-31/A vide which on 05.02.2015 Inspector Mahabir Singh deposited the case property in malkhana. He also exhibited entry no. 73 as Ex. PW-31/B vide which on 06.02.2015 exhibits were again deposited by Inspector Mahabir Singh in malkhana. He further exhibited entries in register No. 19 as Ex. PW31/C and Ex. PW31/D vide which opinion was received on 16.11.2015 and 31.03.2016.
35.2 He also exhibited RC No. 21/21 as Ex. PW31/E vide which exhibits were sent to FSL through Ct. Ajay and acknowledgment received from FSL as Ex. PW31/F. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 36.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 38 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:04:25 +0530 Cr.P.C. on 20.12.2023, wherein both the accused persons denied all the incriminating evidences put to them.
36.2 Accused Bhanu Raghav stated that on 04.02.2015 the marriage function took place at Shiv Farm House, Alipur and on that day he alongwith his team was covering the marriage video and photography and thereafter, during the entire function/jai mala, no altercation whatsoever took place between him and deceased Raj Kumar. Some altercation took between deceased Raj Kumar and Sardarji, who was the associate of Virender and Raj Kumar in his presence during the wedding function. He stated that he peacefully completed his work from Shiv Farm House and thereafter, it was requested by the father of bride to also cover the vidai ceremony from the house of the bride situated at Sant Nagar, Burari as the team of Raj Kumar and Virender refused to do so. He stated that he had gone to the house of bride and covered the vidai ceremony by clicking photographs. 36.3 He stated that on 05.02.2015, he had also another booking of pre wedding at Hauz Khas Village in the morning. He stated that he used to maintain his diary in which he had noted down the booking of his functions. Upon reaching the Hauz Khas, at around 08:00-08:30 AM, he received a phone call from his mother's mobile wherein the IO namely Mahabir Singh talked to him and further said "ki tu jahan bhi hai waha se fatafat aa ja, mujhe tujhse kuch puch tacha karni hai varna me tere papa ko utha kar thane le ja raha hu". He stated that upon hearing this, he handed over his work to his associate namely Ashish and Naveen team members and he left from Hauz Khas Village and reached to his house in his Alto car. After reaching his house at around 09:30-10:00 AM, the IO alongwith his team was already present at his house wherein they had already collected some clothes from his house. Thereafter, IO took him to the police station and further made false case against him. He SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 39 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:04:29 +0530 stated that he had not committed murder of deceased Raj Kumar and the evidence had been planted over by the IO upon him in order to falsely implicate him in the present case.
36.4 Accused Mohit Pal stated that he is innocent. Previously he did not know Bhanu Raghav. He is a professional photographer and used to work from his house. He stated that on 04.02.2015, one Hanumant Singh engaged him to cover the function only for one day because his staff was short and accordingly, he covered the function at Shiv Farm House upto phera ceremonies. Thereafter, bride and bridegroom alongwith their family members and relatives went to Sant Nagar, Burari for Vidai and tikka ceremony as per their customs at bride's residence. He stated that he covered the tikka and vidai ceremony at her residence at Sant Nagar, Burai, thereafter, he went to his residence.
36.5 He stated that the police officer called him through the phone of Hanumant Singh at 07:30 AM on 05.02.2015 and called him to come at Dhakka village. He stated that when he reached there, Hanumant Singh was present with some police officers. They enquired regarding the function and accordingly, he narrated that he did photography at Shiv Farm House upto phera ceremony and thereafter, he went alongwith the family to cover the vidai and tikka ceremony. He stated that he was present at Sant Nagar upto 07:00 AM. He handed over his camera and his mobile phone to the police officer and told him that entire function was recorded in that camera upto vidai ceremony. He stated that he also told that the police officer to check his location of his mobile phone. He stated that thereafter, he was taken to police station Alipur where he was falsely implicated in this case. He has no concern whatsoever with the murder of the deceased and he was not aware as to how he expired.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 40 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:04:33 +0530
Both accused persons opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 37.1 DW1 Jai Singh, who happens to be father of accused Mohit Pal, deposed that on 05.02.2015, he received a phone call around 08:00 AM from Hanumant Raghav, who stated that Mohit Pal be sent to Dhakka Chowk as some information was to be taken from him with regard to videography done by him at Burari. He further deposed that he alongwith his son Mohit went to Dhakka Chowk and saw that there were three police constables present over there. He further deposed that Hanumant Raghav stated that he needs some information from Mohit with regard to videography done by him and took away Mohit Pal with him. He further deposed that in the evening they were informed that they had to visit PS Alipur as his son was arrested in the present case.
37.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State he stated that he had not brought any record that he received any phone call on 05.02.2015 at 08:00 AM as stated by him. He denied that accused Mohit was not apprehended from Dhakka Chowk and he was apprehended from Labour Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari.
38.1 DW2 Sonu, who happens to be brother of accused Mohit Pal, deposed on the lines of DW1 in his examination in chief. 38.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State he stated that he has not brought any record that his father received any phone call on 05.02.2015 at 08:00 AM. He denied the suggestion that accused Mohit was not apprehended from Dhakka Chowk and he was apprehended from Labour Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 41 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:04:52 +0530
39.1 DW3 Nem Kumar deposed that on 04.02.2015, he had attended a
marriage function at Alipur Farmhouse. He did the videography of the entire marriage function as he was called by accused Bhanu. He further deposed that after all the proceedings were done at the said farmhouse including saptpadi, he alongwith accused Bhanu left the farmhouse. He further deposed that accused Bhanu had gone to the house of bride located at Sant Nagar, Burari as the vidai ceremony was scheduled from her residence only. He further deposed that after leaving the farmhouse, he had gone to his residence. 39.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that he has no studio and he attended the marriage on the request of accused Bhanu. He stated that he reached the farmhouse at 06:00-06:30 PM and returned back from the farmhouse at about 05:00 AM next morning. He stated that he had charged Rs. 3,500/- for the videography from accused Bhanu Raghav. He could not tell as to how he came into contact with accused Bhanu Raghav but he met him somewhere in a function. He could not tell as to when he was requested by accused Bhanu Raghav to cover the videography of the said function. He stated that they never contacted each other after the said function, however, they had telephonic conversation once or twice prior to 04.02.2015. He stated that he had not taken any photographs at the marriage and he had only videographed the marriage function. He stated that he can not produce the video of the videography done by him in the marriage function as he handed over the video to accused Bhanu Raghav after 3-4 days of the function i.e., 04.02.2015. He denied that all the suggestions put forth on behalf of State.
40.1 DW4 Krishan Kant deposed that accused Bhanu is residing in his neighbourhood. In February, 2015, one marriage function took place in his neighbourhood and Sh. Narender Singh another neighbour in his vicinity had SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 42 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:04:57 +0530 organized the function on account of his daughter's marriage. He deposed that he attended that function and came back to his house at around 11:00 -11:30 PM. He further deposed that the vidai ceremony took place in the morning hours of next day of the marriage from the house of bride and same was covered by accused Bhanu and he also witnessed the same. 40.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that he attended the marriage function but he could not tell the names of bridegroom and bride. He stated that vidai ceremony took place at around 05:00-06:00 AM and he witnessed the same while standing outside and he did not enter the bride's house at that time. He stated that there might be one-two members doing photography present at vidai ceremony. He stated that he never filed any application or complaint to any authority or court in favour of accused Bhanu Raghav. He denied that he had never attended the said function and that is why he was not able to produce any photograph or invitation card of the marriage. He denied that he never saw accused Bhanu Raghav covering the vidai ceremony and that is why he never entered the bride's house.
41. DW5 Ajit Singh Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that as per record, mobile No. 9911405859 is registered in the name of Karam Chand s/o Shri Chand activated on 26.02.2016 and mobile No.9990028054 registered in the name of Arjun Shakya s/o Vijay Pal activated on 29.12.2015. He further deposed that CAF and CDR of mobile numbers i.e., 9911405859 and 9990028054 pertaining to February 2015 are not available in the company. He exhibited certificate in this regard as Ex. DW5/A. 42.1 DW6 Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. deposed that as per our record mobile No. 9971483358 was issued in the name Jai Singh SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 43 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:05:03 +0530 s/o Govind Ram r/o L-2, Dhakka Village, Kingsway Camp, Delhi on 15/09 but year was missing in the CAF, therefore, he could not say in which year, the number was issued by the company. He exhibited CAF on the basis of time period i.e., 04.02.2015 and 05.02.2015 as Ex. DW6/A and attested copy of the ration card of Jai Singh as Ex. DW6/B and distributor Tele Calling Feedback Form as Ex. DW6/C. 42.2 He further deposed that no call detail record of mobile No. 9971483358 pertaining to 04.02.2015 to 05.02.2015 was available and he exhibited his report as Ex. DW6/D. 43.1 DW7 Shefali Raghav, who happens to be sister of accused Bhanu Raghav, deposed that on 05.02.2015 at about 07:30-08:00 AM, 3-4 police officers visited her home and inquired about her brother Bhanu Raghav. She deposed that upon inquiry it was informed to the police officers that Bhanu Raghav had gone in a function as her brother was a professional photographer. Police officers insisted that Bhanu Raghav should be called immediately as they had come from police station Alipur. She further deposed that police officer took the mobile phone of her mother and dialed Bhanu Raghav and informed him that they had come from Police Station Alipur and they urgently need his presence as they had to inquire something. They also threatened that in case he would not come then he would take his father alongwith them. She further deposed that accused Bhanu Raghav after hearing the words of police officers came back to house and reached around 09:00-09:15 AM. When Bhanu Raghav was about to enter the house, he was caught by police officers from the outside of house and also by police officers, who were present inside house and took him to police station and her father also followed them to police station.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 44 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:05:07 +0530
43.2 She further deposed that on 05.02.2015 at about 07:00-07:30 PM,
police officers of PS Alipur again visited her house and inquired from them that where the clothes of Bhanu Raghav are kept. She further deposed that she showed the almirah of her brother and from where police officers had taken two-three clothes i.e., pants, shirt and one blazer and thereafter, they went back. She further deposed that when her father returned back to home at around 10:30-11:00 PM on 05.02.2015, he informed that Bhanu Raghav has been implicated in a false case.
43.3 During cross examination done on behalf of State, she stated that police had taken black colour clothes i.e., pants, shirts and blazer. She could not say how many pairs of black colour clothes Bhanu Raghav had at that time. She stated that no complaint was made to senior officer or to the court till date that clothes of Bhanu Raghav had been taken by police as they were perplexed. She denied that she is deposing falsely to save accused Bhanu Raghav, being her real brother, who had tried to manipulate record of the court at the time of recording of evidence of IO Inspector Mahabir Singh and during exhibiting case property i.e., clothes of the accused seized by the IO Inspector Mahabir Singh. She further denied that since no clothes of the accused were taken by the police from almirah of the accused, therefore, she was unable to give the specific number of clothes and also black colour shirt, pants and blazer, the accused had.
44. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
45. I have heard Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Bharat Dubey, Sh. Piyush Pahuja and Sh. Droan Dutt, Ld. Counsels for accused SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 45 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:05:11 +0530 Bhanu Raghav and Sh. Jaiveer Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohit Pal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
46.1 It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature. The presence of both accused persons, eye witness and the victim is not disputed in the marriage function organized at Shiva Farm House on 04.02.2015. Accused persons were engaged to click photographs and videography of the function by the bride's family whereas eye witness Virender, deceased Raj Kumar and two of their associates were covering the function as photographers on behalf of bridegroom's family. It is stated that deceased Raj Kumar and accused Bhanu Raghav had an altercation around 02:00 AM on 05.02.2015 when jaimala took place. The issue was sorted out at that time but accused persons had a grudge against the deceased. Around 05:00 AM the function got over and when deceased was approaching towards parking lot, he was stabbed by accused Bhanu Raghav whereas co- accused Mohit Pal and CCL 'M' caught hold of his hands. 46.2 PW7 Virender witnessed the murder and on the basis of his statement, FIR was registered. He has thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution has proved that three buttons which were recovered at the instance of accused Bhanu Raghav, were got broken from his shirt during the incident. The blood stain was found on the steering of his car and as per the FSL report, the blood was of the deceased on the car steering. Therefore, prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons that both of them were involved in the heinous crime of murder of deceased Raj Kumar.
46.3 It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 46 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:05:16 +0530 witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC
625. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED BHANU RAGHAV 47.1 It is argued by Sh. Bharat Dubey, Sh. Piyush Pahuja and Sh. Droan Dutt, ld. Counsels for accused Bhanu Raghav that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused. There is a delay in the FIR of around 3½ hours which is beyond explanation. IO could not recover the weapon of offence during investigation. Eye witness Virender is a planted witness. The actual offender was one sikh boy, who was member of the photography team of the deceased himself but instead of arresting the actual offender, both accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case merely on the unreliable statement of PW Virender. He falsely deposed against the accused persons to shield his sikh friend.
47.2 The recovery of buttons from the parking lot of Shiv Farm House is absolutely unbelievable. The blood stains on the steering of the car is a planted evidence created by the IO against the accused. The manner in which accused was arrested is highly dubious. There is no explanation as to why CCTV footage of the said farm house was not collected by the IO despite the fact that CCTV cameras were installed over there. The investigation is full of manipulations and the entire story of the prosecution has proved to be a concocted one which cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. Hence, it is prayed that accused Bhanu Raghav be acquitted as the evidence placed on record is tainted and prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 47 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.05.31
17:05:19 +0530
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MOHIT PAL
48.1 In addition to the arguments of Sh. Bharat Dubey, ld. Counsel for
accused Bhanu, it is argued by Sh. Jaiveer Chauhan that the only role assigned to accused Mohit is that he caught hold of the deceased when co-accused Bhanu allegedly stabbed him. It is stated that nothing is mentioned in the FIR as to in which manner accused Mohit had participated in the incident. It is further argued that if PW Virender is an eye witness to the murder and he was aware about the identity of the accused persons then why he did not disclose their names at the time of informing the police soon after the incident. There is no explanation why his name is not mentioned in the MLC of the injured to the prove that he was accompanying the injured. Prosecution has withheld important witnesses i.e., tea vendor used to sit just outside the Shiv Farm House and the other team members of the photography unit of deceased. There is no public witness joined in the collection of evidence and arrest proceedings of the accused despite their availability.
48.2 It is submitted that the case of the prosecution is hopelessly devoid of any merits and there is no reliable evidence proved on record against the accused persons. It is prayed that accused Mohit Pal may be acquitted considering the inability of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
49. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record and case laws relied upon by Ld. counsels for accused persons.
FINDINGS
50. The accused Bhanu Raghav and Mohit Pal have been charged for SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 48 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:05:23 +0530 the commission of offences punishable under section 302/34 IPC.
51. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 300 IPC "Section 300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
SECTION 302 IPC Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.] SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 49 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:05:28 +0530
52. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
53. In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved.It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
54. Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Ram Gopal in "India of Vedic Kalpsutras" has stated that even under the ancient system of Administration of Criminal Justice, the benefit of doubt was always be given to the accused. So, Apasthamba laid down that the king should not punish any person in case of doubt.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 50 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.05.31
17:05:32 +0530
55. It appears seemly to trace the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt as evolved by Superior Law Courts of England and India. In Miller Vs. Minister of Pensions, (1947) all England law reports 372 Volume 2 Lord Denning J. observed, "I ..... prove beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to lead only to a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course, it is possible, but not in the least probable" the case is proved beyond doubt......"
56. The concept of benefit of doubt has been explained in numerous decisions which are being followed in catena of cases. A stream of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court commencing with the M. G. Aggarwal, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1963 2 SCR 405,491; AIR 1963 SC 200 and Climax by Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 2013 (82) ACC 467 (SC) has settled the law wherein it was held that prove beyond reasonable doubt is not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt. It is a fair doubt based upon reason or common sense.
57. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 7 SCC 171, it has been held that the prosecution has to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubts and cannot take support from the weakness of the defence and hence, there must be proper and legal evidence to record the conviction of the accused.
58. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 51 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:05:36 +0530
MOTIVE
59.1 Law is settled that motive is an important and significant factor in
commission of any crime. Motive is related to mens rea of an accused whereas the act or offence in relation to the motive is the actus reus. Although, a case wherein the case of the prosecution is dependent upon an oral testimony of an eye witness, then the inability of the prosecution to prove the motive is not fatal. If case is based upon circumstantial evidence then motive assumes significance and failure to prove the same in such cases would be detrimental to the case of the prosecution.
59.2 In the present case, we have an eye witness PW7 Virender, who is the star witness of the prosecution and his testimony is the foundation of the case of the prosecution. Although, motive in this case is of secondary importance as there is an eye witness but it is important to analyze as to what was the cause of the incident. It is being projected that at the time of jaimala, deceased and accused Bhanu Raghav were trying to click photographs of the couple and while doing so, deceased Raj Kumar had pushed accused Bhanu Raghav. An altercation took place between them but it was sorted out. Accused Bhanu Raghav nursed a grudge against the deceased. When they were about to leave Shiv Farm House around 05:00 AM, he called the deceased and said raat ko jayada bol raha tha, kar du tera kaam tamam . When the deceased objected for the same, accused Mohit Pal and CCL 'M' caught hold of his hands and accused Bhanu Raghav gave a knife blow on left side of his chest which ultimately proved to be fatal.
59.3 Prosecution has examined PW23 Hans Kumar Nain as he was the bridegroom in the said marriage. In his examination in chief, he has not stated even a single word that any altercation took place between the photographers at the time of jaimala. In his cross examination, he categorically that there was SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 52 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:05:40 +0530 no quarrel in the marriage function and the jaimala ceremony was completed in very peaceful manner. Bride Anshu has not been cited as a prosecution witness. If any altercation had taken place between the accused and deceased as claimed by PW7 Virender Kumar then it should have been noticed by PW23 because the photographers are generally very close to the couple at the time of jaimala to click best photos. It would have been a different case, if PW23 had stated that he was not aware about any such altercation. He clearly stated that jaimala was performed in a peaceful manner. It shows that this witness is very much sure about this fact and hence, his testimony is contradictory to the version of PW7, who is claiming occurrence of that incident. 59.4 During the investigation, CDs of videography of the marriage were collected by the IO. One of such CD was played during the cross examination of PW32 Inspector Mahabir Singh wherein it could be heard that a person was saying something in Punjabi accent. IO admitted that one Sardarji can be seen holding a video camera. He admitted that he did not interrogate Sardarji during investigation. Meaning thereby, I find strength in the defence's version that one Sardarji was part of the photography team engaged by bride's family and there is very possibility that the words which got recorded in the video were of that Sardarji.
59.5 If there was an altercation between the accused and deceased then their voice ought to have been recorded in the video as the voice of one person having Punjabi accent has been recorded. There is no evidence as to who was that person, whose voice was recorded as IO did not collect voice samples of accused persons, eye witness or any other person during investigation. The court had heard those words in Punjabi accent and it can be perceived that the person talking in Punjabi accent was confronting someone else. Meaning thereby, there is possibility that the argument did took place but not between SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 53 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:05:44 +0530 the deceased and accused Bhanu. It was the job of the IO to investigate this fact but he failed to do so. Hence, considering the above discussion, I am of the considered view that prosecution could not prove with certainty the alleged pushing incident occurred at the time of Jaimala. As stated above, the inefficiency to prove the motive in this case cannot be termed as fatal but the bone of contention between the deceased and accused persons remains unproved.
PRESENCE OF EYE WITNESS VIRENDER 60.1 PW7 Virender is the complainant and eye witness in this case. He was the first person, who informed the police at number 100 about the incident. Later on, FIR was registered on his statement and on his identification, accused persons were arrested on 05.02.2015 itself. The whole case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of this witness whereas the defence has cried foul and declared him as a planted witness.
60.2 It is admitted case of the parties that PW7 Virender was part of the photography team, who had covered the function from bride's side. This photography team consisted of four persons i.e., deceased Raj Kumar, PW7 Virender and two other persons whose identities have not been disclosed during the entire trial. First of all, PW7 stated that accused Bhanu stabbed the deceased whereas co-accused Mohit and CCL 'M' caught hold of him. The manner in which deceased was held by them has not been described by him in the FIR.
60.3 PW7 deposed that he came to know about the names of the accused persons during the function and that is how he disclosed their names in his complaint. If PW7 was aware about the names of the accused persons prior to the murder then he could have easily mentioned their names at the time SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 54 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:05:48 +0530 of calling the police at number 100. He called the police from his mobile number 9899325745 and informed "caller bol raha hai ki photographer ko chaku maar diya". PCR form has been proved as PW26/A wherein this information has been recorded at 05:23:37. No reasonable explanation is forth coming from this witness for not disclosing the names of accused persons in this PCR call.
60.4 In Kishan Pal Vs. State Crl. A. No. 109/1997 decided on 26.03.2004, Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon Jagir Singh Vs. State (Delhi), 1975 SCC (Crl.) 129 and Shivaji Dayanu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1989 SUPP (1) SCC 758, held that non disclosure of the name of the assailants, previously known to the witness, at the first possible instance while admitting the deceased in the hospital and reporting the incident to the police would be unnatural conduct. The conviction cannot be based upon such a testimony. In the present case also PW7 Virender did not disclose the name of accused persons till registration of FIR despite the fact that he was well aware about their names. He has failed to provide any logic or reason for doing so.
60.5 The conduct of this witness during the incident and after that is also somewhat unnatural and improbable. In Dindayal Vs. Raj Kumar (1998) SCC (Crl) 892, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by Hon'ble High Court and dismissed the appeal and held as under:
"We find that the High court has given good reasons for taking a different view. It has pointed the improbability of the version given by them. The witnesses had not accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor had taken any trouble of going and informing the police about what had happened. After seeing the incidence they quietly went back to their homes. It cannot be said that the view taken by High Court that the conduct of the witnesses was not natural is unreasonable. They were not merely eye witnesses. They were SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 55 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:05:51 +0530 closely connected with the deceased. The High Court was, therefore, justified in not placing any reliance upon their evidence".
60.6 Hon'ble Supreme Court discarded the testimony of eye witnesses on the basis of their unnatural and improbable conduct. In the present case also the conduct of PW7 Virender is somewhat suspicious. If he was present at the time of stabbing then naturally he should have intervened to save the deceased. He is absolutely silent as to why he did not intervene between the accused persons and deceased. When he claims that he got sorted out the argument between deceased and accused Bhanu at the time of jaimala then he could have easily intervened to avoid the incident. If accused persons were hell bent upon to kill the deceased then PW7 Virender was supposed to resist in favour of the deceased and in that scenario there would be have been a scuffle because the assailants were three in number and victim and complainant could have countered them. There is complete inaction on the part of PW7 which is highly improbable conduct as deceased was member of his team. His non participation and non intervention has become questionable. 60.7 Another significant fact surfaced in the examination in chief of PW7 is that deceased Raj Kumar had told him that he was stabbed by accused Bhanu Raghav. This fact was not mentioned by him to the police during investigation. He deposed as under:
"I rushed towards Raj Kumar, who had already fallen down onto the floor. I tried to lift Raj Kumar with my hands and at that time, Raj Kumar had told me that he was stabbed by accused Bhanu Raghav. Raj Kumar was bleeding profusely from h is chest at that time. Thereafter, Raj Kumar had lost his consciousness".
60.8 This is an important piece of evidence because if deceased had SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 56 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:05:57 +0530 stated so to PW7 then it amounts to dying declaration. There is no reason for PW7 for not disclosing this fact to the police at the first available opportunity. Actually this is an improvement made by him before the court in his testimony. In fact, while stating so, he himself put a question mark on his status of eye witness. On one hand, he is claiming that accused Bhanu Raghav had stabbed the deceased in his presence and if that is the case then why would deceased had stated to him that he was stabbed by accused Bhanu. The inference which culls out from this portion of testimony is that there is every possibility that PW7 Virender was not present at the time of alleged incident. 60.9 PW7 did not try to apprehend the accused persons when they were fleeing away from there. He claimed that he tried to help the deceased with his left hand as his right hand was got fractured and plates were inserted. He stated that he put his left hand around the deceased and sat down on the ground. It is not in dispute that deceased was bleeding profusely at that time. If PW7 had tried to help the deceased in any manner then there ought to have been blood stains on his clothes, shoes, etc. He deposed as under:
"However, the blood did not smear either my wearing clothes or even my shoes at the time when I was holding Raj Kumar."
He further deposed as under:
"Court Question: Can you tell the court as to how you had holded Raj Kumar as stated by you above?
Answer: I had holded Raj Kumar from his right side by giving my left arm on his back side, by sitting on my knees.
I could not made efforts to ensure that the blood oozing out from body of Raj Kumar is stopped as I got frightened and perturbed at that time. Apart from my left hand, no other part of my body had touched the body of Raj Kumar when I was holding him. I had not stated the minute details regarding the manner in which I had holded Raj Kumar as stated by me above, to IO in my SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 57 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:02 +0530 police statement."
60.10 Even if it is accepted, the incident of stabbing occurred in a flash and PW7 Virender could not react in time then he could have acted in a natural way to help the deceased. It is quite understandable that a person may get perturbed with the occurrence of such an incident and he may enter into a stage of shock and takes time to get out of it. When eye witness tried to help the deceased by holding him then his intent was to help him and the best help to the victim was to stop the flow of blood. How come a person could not even put his hand or a cloth on the wound of the victim to avoid the blood loss, is beyond comprehension of this court. It is virtually impossible that a person, who is bleeding so heavily is being held by the eye witness and that too in his lap but there is no blood stain on any part of his apparels or shoes. 60.11 In State of Rajasthan Vs. Taran Singh & Anr. 2003 (12) SCC 341, the facts were exactly same wherein two witnesses had picked the deceased when he was bleeding profusely. One of them carried the deceased on his shoulder while other held the chest of the deceased. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if these two witnesses carried the deceased the possibilities of these witnesses's clothes being not blood stained is next to impossible. 60.12 In Khima Vikamshi & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2003) CriLJ 2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court disbelieved the presence of daughter in law of the deceased as an eye witness as there were no blood stains on her person or clothes despite she held the victim and also travelled in the tempo for a long distance. Accused persons were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 60.13 In State of Punjab Vs. Harbans and Anr. (2003) 6 AIC 559, the accused persons were acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court. The matter went in appeal and the appeal was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court while SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 58 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:06 +0530 observing as under:
"10. It is the prosecution case itself that Darshan Singh who was one of the witnesses to the incident who also helped Pws. 4 and 11 to carry the injured to the hospital and remained with them almost right through has not been examined by the prosecution. The explanation given is that he has been won over by accused. But then it is also to be noted that there were many neighbours also who came to the place of incident but none of them have been examined as witnesses leaving only Pws. 4 and 11 as the sole eye- witnesses in this case. Further it is to be noticed that these two witnesses alongwith Darshan Singh carried both the injured persons in the vehicle and thereafter helped in carrying the injured persons to the Primary Health Center but no blood stained clothes were recovered from the possession of these witnesses which also throws considerable doubt about the presence of these witnesses at the time of incident. PW-11 though says that there was a little blood stain on his cloth, he washed the same in the hospital which explanation, in our opinion, is highly artificial".
60.14 In above mentioned cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the absence of blood stains on the clothes of the material witnesses as a significant aspect. The court did not rely upon the testimony of these witnesses and benefit of doubt was given to the accused persons. In the present case also no reasonable explanation is forthcoming from PW7 as to how come he had no blood stains over his clothes or any part of the body, if he had tried to help the injured.
60.15 It is not in dispute that PW7 was not capable of shifting the injured to the hospital as his Maruti car was found parked in the parking itself of the farm house. Instead of instantly shifting the injured to the hospital in the Maruti car he kept waiting for the PCR van which resulted in wastage of valuable time. As per contents of rukka, the incident occurred at 05:00 AM. Needless to say this time of incident is based upon the knowledge of complainant Virender. If the incident had occurred at 05:00AM then why he SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 59 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:11 +0530 called the police at 05:23:37 AM and what was the reason for the delay of 23 minutes in informing the police. The PCR van reached at Farm house 05:40:39 AM. The PCR van reached at hospital at 05:55:22 but by that time the injured had already expired. Meaning thereby, his conduct of not shifting the injured to hospital in Maruti car resulting in wastage of more than 15 minutes. If he had an injury in his right hand then he could have call someone from the farm house to help him in shifting the injured. How come PW7 did not act naturally in shifting the injured to the hospital, is beyond explanation on his part. This aspect of his conduct has raised a question on his presence at the spot as an eye witness.
60.16 When PCR came at the spot, PW7 did not help the police officials in removing the deceased in the van under the same pretext that he was having plates inserted in his right hand. This aspect of his conduct is again dubious and there is no explanation why he did so. If someone is dying and that too member of your team but PW7 was concerned about his right hand. It is absolutely against the natural reaction of any person, who is allegedly present at the spot. If PW7 was incapacitated by the injuries in his right hand then how come he covered the entire function throughout the night, is also a point worth consideration for this court.
60.17 There is another material witness i.e., PW6 Amar Singh, who was deputed as a guard at the said farm house on the fateful night. He deposed that he had seen one person taking care of the injured and he informed that photographers had stabbed the injured. If version of PW6 is to be accepted then there was communication between PW6 and PW7 prior to arrival of police. On the other hand, PW7 has claimed that he did not meet anyone after the stabbing and prior to the arrival of police and hence, he has contradicted PW6 Amar Singh that PW6 came there and saw the condition of the injured.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 60 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:06:15 +0530
Two material witnesses of the prosecution are deposing in contradictory manner to each other which has created a doubt in the credibility of their depositions.
60.18 The manner in which PW7 has reacted during and after the incident is exactly contrary to a natural human conduct. If he had helped the deceased there ought to have been blood stains on his clothes to prove his version of the entire incident. Although, PW22 HC Deepak has stated that when they reached at the Farm House, PW7 Virender met them and he accompanied them to the hospital. Meaning thereby, PW7 was present at the farm house and that is why he informed the police about the incident and met PCR officials when they reached there but his deposition that he witnessed the stabbing incident lacks strength in it when his conduct is being assessed by the court.
60.19 If he had travelled to hospital with the victim in the PCR van then he could have disclosed the names of the accused persons to PCR officials and consequently, PCR officials would have mentioned those names in their log register maintained in the said van. This fact could have been also mentioned in the contents of Ex. PW26/A. Meaning thereby, it is highly doubtful that PW7 had gone to the hospital with the victim.
60.20 It is also matter of record that his name has not been mentioned in the MLC of the injured that he had accompanied the injured. Name of HC Deepak has been mentioned in the category "brought by/name of relative or friend". SI Dhirendra reached at hospital and he met PW7 over there but surprisingly, PW7 did not disclose about the involvement of accused persons to SI Dhirendra. SI Dhirendra has been examined as PW19 and he had made enquiries from PW7 but he did not depose before the court that PW7 had disclosed the name of assailants to him in the hospital. Meaning thereby, there SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 61 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:20 +0530 were several opportunities available to PW7 to disclose the names of the accused persons but he kept mum and the first time the name of accused persons came on record when rukka was prepared.
60.21 It is matter of record that incident occurred at 05:00 AM whereas statement of the complainant was recorded and rukka was sent to registration of FIR at about 09:15 AM. Considering the gap between the occurrence of incident and lodging of FIR, I find merit in the argument of Sh. Jaiveer Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for accused Mohit Pal that there is an inordinate and unexplainable delay in registration of FIR. The statement of the complainant could have been easily recorded in the hospital, if complainant was present over there. The MLC was prepared at 06:35 AM vide which deceased was declared brought dead and ideally, statement of the eye witness ought to have been recorded there and then only without any delay. 60.22 Law is settled that an accused can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony but the witness has to be reliable and trustworthy and his version should be unblemished and cogent. It is the quality of evidence which matters in a criminal trial and not the quantity. By virtue of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act and several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, law in this regard is settled that it is the quality and not the quantity which is important in a criminal trial. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of number of witnesses. In case titled as Chacko @ Aniyan Kunju and others Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 2688 and in Rama Krishna Madhusudhan Nayar Vs. State of Maharasthra AIR 2008 SC 927, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that a person can be convicted on the basis of the solitary evidence, if he is wholly reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticisms and the court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone, conviction can be maintained.
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 62 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.05.31
17:06:24 +0530
60.23 Considering the above discussion, the highly unnatural and
improbable conduct of PW7 during and after the incident, absence of blood stains on his clothes, he did not shift the injured to the hospital instantly despite having a Maruti car, he informed the police after a gap of around 23 minutes, he did not disclose the names of the accused persons despite available opportunities, this court is of the considered view that testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon against the accused persons and that too in a heinous crime of murder.
LACUNAS IN THE INVESTIGATION:
61. ABSENCE OF CCTV FOOTAGE:
61.1 It is matter of record that prosecution has not proved the CCTV footage of Shiv Farm House during the trial. Accused persons have pleaded a defence that they had left the farm house prior to the incident to cover the vidai ceremony of bride which was scheduled from her house. It is argued that IO deliberately withheld the CCTV footage otherwise it would have been crystal clear as to how the incident had occurred, who had stabbed the deceased, presence of PW7 at the spot and the timing of accused persons leaving the farm house. It is argued that if CCTV footage had been placed on record then the entire case of the prosecution would have proved to be bunch of lies. 61.2 IO Inspector Mahabir has deposed in his cross examination that no CCTV cameras were found installed at the said Farm house and that is why no CCTV footage was available. He did not serve any notice under section 91 CrPC upon the owner of the said farm house to provide the CCTV footage.
Prosecution has examined PW11 Sanjeev Bhatnagar, who happens to be lessee of the said farm house. In his cross examination done on behalf of accused SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 63 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:28 +0530 Mohit Pal he admitted that he got installed CCTV cameras to cover the lawn, food space, khoti and halwai area, but not for parking area. He further stated that IO had demanded the CCTV footage of the function but he had not handed over the same to the IO as IO did not serve any written notice upon him. The deposition of PW11 qua the installation of CCTV cameras find corroboration from the testimony of PW12 Dinesh @ Tinku, who was working as a Manager in the said farmhouse. He admitted in his cross examination that police official did not demand any CCTV footage from him. He stated that his employer is the custodian of the all the CCTV cameras/recordings. The joint reading of testimonies of PW11 and PW 12 make it clear that there were CCTV Cameras installed in the said farm house and PW32 IO Inspector Mahabir faultered during investigation by not collecting the same.
61.3 Even if it is believed that no CCTV cameras was covering the parking area even then the CCTV footage would have been of great significance. It could have been easily ascertained as to when accused persons had left the farm house and by which mode. It is not the case that IO was not aware as to how a document is to be seized during evidence. He served a notice under section 91 CrPC upon PW11 Sanjeev Bhatnagar and demanded the documents pertaining to the farm house but there is no mention about the CCTV footage. He could have easily demanded the CCTV footage from PW11 in the same notice. Meaning thereby, I find strength in the argument of defence counsels that CCTV footage has been deliberately withheld by the IO for the reason best known to him.
61.4 In Tomaso Bruno Vs. State of U. P. MANU/SC/0057/2015, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"22. CCTV footage is a strong piece of evidence which would have indicated whether the accused remained inside the hotel and whether they were SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 64 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:32 +0530 responsible for the commission of a crime. It would have also shown whether or not the accused had gone out of the hotel. CCTV footage being crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing. Omission to produce CCTV footage in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubt about the prosecution's case."
Hon'ble Supreme Court further held as under:
"27. The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile hones seized from the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case. Non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made.
28. As per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of providing does not lie on him. The presumption Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Unlike presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no option but to draw statutory presumption, Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court has the option; the court may or may not raise presumption on the proof of certain facts. Drawing of presumption Under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and its important in controversy, the usual mode of proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned, all of which have to be taken into account. It is only when all these matters are duly considered SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 65 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:37 +0530 that an averse inference can be drawn against the party."
61.5 Applying the ratio of above mentioned Tomaso Bruno's case (discussed supra) to the present case, there is deliberate attempt on the part of the IO for not producing the CCTV footage of the said farm house. It was a crucial piece of evidence which could have been very beneficial for the court to adjudicate this matter and to fix the identity of the murderer. Hence, an adverse presumption needs to be drawn under section 114(g) of Evidence Act against the prosecution to the fact that it has withheld an importance piece of evidence without any justification. This is a major lacuna in the investigation process which has gone unexplained.
RECOVERY OF BUTTONS OF SHIRT 62.1 After the arrest of accused Bhanu Raghav, IO got recovered one black shirt at his instance from his house. This black shirt was allegedly worn by accused Bhanu in the intervening night of 04-05.02.2015 while covering the marriage function. It is being projected by the prosecution that three buttons of the said shirt were found to be broken and accused Bhanu Raghav disclosed that these buttons got broken during the scuffle with the deceased and had fallen at the spot. It is alleged that after arrest of accused Bhanu Raghav at 06:30 PM, accused Mohit Pal was arrested at 08:15 PM and thereafter, both of them were taken to the farm house and recovery of buttons was effected. As per seizure memo of these buttons, they were recovered from a grassy patch near the parking area.
62.2 First of all, the police officials namely SI Dhirendra and Ct. Ajeet reached at the spot around 06:00 AM besides PCR officials. After the death of Raj Kumar, IO PW32 Inspector Mahabir came to the spot alongwith eye SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 66 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:41 +0530 witness and other police officials and there he prepared the rukka around 09:00 AM. It is also matter of record that Ct. Ajeet preserved the spot from 06:00 AM to 09:00 AM which means that crime scene was not disturbed in those three hours. It is also matter of record that crime team inspected the parking lot and the spot but apart from blood stains over the cemented tiles, no other exhibit was traced and collected by them. The court has carefully perused the crime team inspection report as well as photographs clicked during inspection. When the crime spot was duly and thoroughly checked by the local police as well as by the crime team officials, then how come these three buttons could not be detected and recovered in the day light. As per the photographs of the spot, there was sufficient light at the time of inspection and black buttons three in number could not have gone untraced if they were lying at the spot. 62.3 IO prepared a rough site plan of the crime scene on the same day wherein he had shown point 'B1' to 'B5' where blood spots were present. These points are at a distance of 1 or 2 paces from each other as described by the IO in this rough site plan. Subsequently, PW1 Inspector Mahesh Kumar prepared a scaled site plan and he had shown point J as the place from where IO got recovered three black colour shirt buttons. The blood spots have been shown as 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H' and 'I' in the scaled site plan. The distance between the blood spots and point J is so minimal that it was virtually impossible for the police officials to overlook these buttons if they were lying at the spot since beginning. How come an evidence which is lying few paces away from the blood spot went undetected, is beyond comprehension of this court. An evidence which could not be collected in the sufficient day light, was collected at 09:30 PM, is an indication that there is serious doubt on the recovery proceedings.
62.4 It is also matter of record that no rough site plan was prepared by
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 67 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.05.31
17:06:48 +0530
the IO at the time of recovery of these buttons which ought to have been prepared. No photography or videography of the recovery proceedings at 09:30 PM at Shiv Farm House was conducted. The recovery of the buttons was effected on 05.02.2015 whereas crime scene was inspected by PW1 Inspector Mahesh Kumar on 15.04.2015. In absence of any rough site plan of recovery spot of buttons and photographs, the knowledge of draughtsman Mahesh Kumar is totally dependent upon the knowledge of IO. It is interesting to observe that how come IO pointed out the exact spot of recovery of these buttons to the draughtsman after a time gap of 70 days. The manner in which scaled site plan has been prepared, wherein place of recovery of buttons has been shown, does not inspire confidence of this court. 62.5 Even if it is believed that those buttons got broken during the scuffle then there has to be oral testimony in this regard. As stated above PW7 is the star witness of the prosecution but he has not deposed that there was any scuffle between the accused persons and deceased. He simply stated that after calling the deceased, accused Mohit Pal and CCL caught hold of his hands and accused Bhanu gave a knife blow on his chest. There is not even a single averment that there was a scuffle prior to stabbing and if that was the case then these three buttons could not have been broken of their own. So, version of prosecution qua occurrence of scuffle resulting in breaking of buttons, finds no corroboration from any other evidence.
62.6 It is being projected that the buttons were recovered from a 'grassy patch' near the parking lot but the court is unable to find/locate any grassy area in the parking lot or near the hut where these buttons could have fallen during the scuffle. When there is no grassy area visible in the photographs clicked of the crime team in the morning then the contents of seizure memo are found to be unreliable. Therefore, the circumstance in which SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 68 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:06:52 +0530 three buttons were recovered by the IO does not inspire confidence of this court. There is strong possibility that these buttons were not broken during the incident and were not lying at the spot from 05:00 AM till 09:00 PM on 05.02.2015. I have no hesitation to say that this is another instance of faulty investigation in this case.
PRESENCE OF BLOOD STAINS IN THE CAR OF ACCUSED
63.1 Prosecution has tried to connect the presence of accused Bhanu Raghav at the spot on the basis of a blood stain allegedly found on the steering of his car. This car was recovered from the possession of the accused when he was arrested and was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW7/F. IO called the FSL expert at the police station, who is PW8 Poonam Sharma. She examined the car and reported that small amount of blood was detected on the steering of the car. She lifted the blood with the help of gauze cloth piece and same was handed over to the IO. PW8 Poonam Sharma has deposed that she had examined the car on 06.02.2015 but the report is of 31.03.2015. It is also matter of record that IO did not prepare any seizure memo of the gauze containing the blood sample lifted from the steering of the car. There is no photograph wherein it can be seen that car inspection was done on 06.02.2015 and there were blood stains on steering. Meaning thereby, there is no documentary proof that the car was inspected on 06.02.2015. Therefore, the inspection of the car by the forensic expert on 06.02.2015 stands unproved for want of photographs, any document prepared by the forensic expert on 06.02.2015 and any seizure memo to be prepared by the IO. 63.2 First of all, it is nowhere mentioned in the seizure memo that there was any blood stain over the steering. In fact, it is not mentioned whether the said car was recovered from the possession of accused Bhanu. It is virtually SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 69 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:06:57 +0530 impossible to comprehend that IO had not checked this car minutely while seizing the same for the simple reason that there was every possibility that evidence related to this case could have been lifted from the car. If the car was thoroughly checked then it is hard to digest that any police official did not observe the presence of blood stains over its steering. 63.3 PW17 SI Gajender was part of the team which apprehended accused Bhanu alongwith the car. He categorically admitted that he did not notice any blood stains over the steering of the Alto car. Similar is the version of another raiding party member PW18 HC Parveen. Therefore, the absence of any specific word in the seizure memo that blood stains were present on the steering of the car which stands corroborated by oral testimonies of PW17 and PW18, it is highly doubtful that any such blood stains was present on the steering of the car at the time of its seizure.
63.4 Another aspect worth mentioning is that the car was being driven by Ct. Satish from Sant Nagar Burari to PS Alipur but he is not a witness in this case. He was the best person to describe whether any blood stain was present on the steering or not as it could not have gone unnoticed from him as he had driven the car. It is next to impossible that a driver would miss a blood stain on the steering of the car. Why this witness has not been examined in the court, remained unexplained by the prosecution.
63.5 It is not the case of the prosecution that seized clothes of accused Bhanu Raghav were having any blood stains over them. If that is the case then it has to be presumed that Bhanu Raghav had no physical interaction with the deceased after the stabbing. How come a person would get blood stains on his hands despite not having any blood stains over a shirt or sleeves, has not be explained by any of the prosecution witness.
63.6 Even for the sake of arguments, the version of the prosecution is SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 70 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:07:01 +0530 considered to be gospel truth that Bhanu Raghav had blood stains on his hands and while driving the car, the blood got transferred to the steering. It is virtually and humanly impossible that a person, who had allegedly committed a murder and he failed to wipe off the blood stains from the steering of his car despite having sufficient time to do so. The murder was committed at 05:00 AM and accused Bhanu Raghav was arrested at 06:30 PM. Meaning thereby, he was arrested after more than 13 hours of the incident and he failed to observe the blood stains over steering of his car. None of the raiding party member was able to detect the blood spot and that is why it was not mentioned in the seizure memo. So, a blood spot which could not seen by anyone, was subsequently detected by the forensic expert. The preposition put forth by the prosecution is unacceptable as it is highly improbable. 63.7 Considering the oral testimonies of PW17 and PW18, contents of seizure memo of the car, non examination of PW Ct. Satish in the witness box and no documentary proof qua examination of car by expert on 06.02.2015 when considered together, a serious doubt looms over the claim of the prosecution that a blood stain was present on the steering of the car of accused Bhanu Raghav.
DISCREPANCY IN CRIME TEAM REPORT
64. As per case of the prosecution crime team was called at the spot for inspection. PW15 ASI Ram Kumar inspected the crime scene and prepared his report which is Ex. PW15/A. During his cross examination, he admitted that in serial No. 3 of his report name of accused persons have been mentioned by him. He denied that he made alteration/ manipulation in the report by adding name of accused persons at the instance of IO after their arrest. This issue has become significant in the light of the fact that the statement of the SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 71 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:07:05 +0530 complainant was not recorded instantly by the IO. There is a delay in the registration of FIR. Complainant Virender did not disclose the name of accused persons on record prior to recording of his statement. It is not in dispute that crime team report was prepared much prior to recording of statement of complainant. If that was the case then how come name of accused persons were incorporated in the report of crime team In-charge. There are two possibilities either name of accused persons came into the knowledge of the IO prior to the preparation of rukka or that there is manipulation in the crime team report.
THE ISSUE OF PLACE OF VIDAI OF BRIDE
65.1 Prosecution has vehemently pleaded this fact that the vidai of the bride took place from farm house itself whereas the defence is pleaded otherwise. It is being argued on behalf of accused persons that the vidai of the bride took place from her residence and photography and videography was done during vidai by accused Bhanu Raghav and Mohit Pal. Therefore, they had left the farm house much prior to the murder.
65.2 The claim of the prosecution that vidai took place from the farm house has been falsified on many occasion. During cross examination of PW32 Inspector Mahabir after watching the CD of the marriage, he admitted that bridegroom had said that vidai yahan se nahi hogi. These words were said by the bridegroom at the farm house. Meaning thereby, vidai was not scheduled to be done from Shiv Farm House. On the other hand, several photographs have been placed on record by the defence depicting the vidai ceremony which is clearly suggestive of this fact that vidai took place from the house of the bride. It is not the case of the prosecution that these photographs are false or fabricated. Defence has examined DW4 Sh. Krishan Pal, who has stated that SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 72 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:07:09 +0530 he had seen the vidai ceremony which took place around 05:00-06:00 AM at the house of the girl.
65.3 IO could have easily verified this fact during investigation. If accused persons were involved in the murder of the deceased then it is highly improbable conduct that they would go to cover the vidai ceremony. Their natural conduct would have been to fled away to save themselves from police. Even for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that vidai ceremony was done covered by accused person then the next question comes as to by whom those pics were clicked. If IO had enquired this issue then he could have easily answered the defence counsels that the photography and videography of the vidai ceremony was done by someone else and not by accused persons. In absence of any plausible explanation coming from the IO, it has to be accepted that vidai ceremony was done from the house of the bride and in absence of any name of photographer, who covered the same, there is every possibility that it was covered by accused persons. It is again a serious lacuna in the investigation done by the IO.
ARREST PROCEEDINGS AND ABSENCE OF PUBLIC WITNESSES 66.1 As per the version of the IO, he visited the house of accused persons in the morning but they were not found available. Accused Bhanu Raghav was arrested on the pointing out of the eye witness PW7 Virender around 06:30 PM. Thereafter, accused led them to his house and got recovered the clothes worn by him at the time of commission of offence. Then accused Mohit Pal was arrested from Labour Chowk, Burari, around 08:15 P M. Both the accused persons were taken to Shiv Farm House for recovery of three buttons.
66.2 In all these proceedings, no public witness has been joined by the
SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 73 of 81
PS Alipur
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date:
2025.05.31
17:07:13 +0530
IO on the pretext that they refused to join the proceedings. The court can understand that normally a public person would not like to involve himself in any police proceedings and that too in a murder case but why no family member of accused Bhanu Raghav or any one from the neighbourhood was joined in the recovery proceedings conducted at his house. It is being put to the IO during his cross examination that why he did not join any public person at the time of arrest of accused Mohit Pal and he replied that only passersby were present. Judicial notice of the fact can be taken that Burari is thickly populated area and generally, public persons are usually available. Any time several labourers are present at Labour chowk waiting for some daily work. It is also worth consideration that Labour Chowk is located in an area surrounded by many shops. Hence, version of the IO that only passersby were available and no other public persons were present which could have been joined in the arrest proceedings of accused Mohit Pal, does not appear to be correct. 66.3 It is also matter of record that no public person joined the proceedings at the time of alleged recovery of buttons. The recovery was effected from the farm house itself and it is next to impossible that no employee of the farm house was available when the police team conducted those proceedings. If guard or any other employee of the farm house was available then they should have been a witness in the recovery proceedings. In fact, they were not in a position to refuse the IO to join the proceedings as the murder was committed in the farm house itself.
66.4 Law is settled that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution, if public persons are not joined in the proceeding despite their availability and no serious efforts are being made by the IO to join them. 66.5 In case titled as "Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana" reported as CC Cases 3 (HC), it was held as that where the police has failed to join SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 74 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:07:17 +0530 independent witnesses in the investigation despite their availability and further failed to take action against those who refused to take part in investigation nor their names were noted down by the police, the explanation of the police for not joining independent witnesses is an afterthought and liable to be rejected. 66.6. In the case of "Hem Raj Vs. State of Haryana" AIR 2005 SC 2110, it has been observed that:-
"The fact that no independent witness though available, was examined and not even an explanation was sought to be given for not examining such witness is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. Amongst the independent witnesses one who was very much in the know of things from the beginning was not examined by the prosecution. Non-examination of independent witness by itself may not given rise to adverse inference against the prosecution. However, when the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses raise serious doubts on the point of their presence at the time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness would assume significance".
66.7. In the case of "Pawan Kumar Vs. the Delhi Administration", 1989 Cr.LJ 127, in which it was observed as follows:-
"Kalam Singh has to admit that at the time of the arrest and recovery of the knife, there was a lot of rush of public at the bus stop near Subhash Bazar. According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while accordingly to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhash Bazar, there would be no person present at the crucial time like 07:30 PM when there is a lot of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 75 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:07:22 +0530 no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the Independent witnesses in case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least that IO should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
66.8 Public witnesses were admittedly not joined in investigation though available. The testimony of official witnesses does not find any corroboration from any independent source. In view of the opinion of this court, the non-joining of public witness is fatal to the prosecution case against persons, particularly when no reasonable explanation has been given by prosecution for not joining public witnesses.
NON EXAMINATION OF IMPORTANT WITNESSES 67.1 It is not the case that only public witnesses in recovery proceedings are absent from the list of prosecution witnesses but IO has also failed to examine two more important witnesses in this case. As stated above, deceased and eye witness Virender were accompanied by two persons but who were they, have not been verified by the IO. Defence has put up a case that the murder was committed by one Sardarji associate of the deceased himself as they had an altercation amongst each other during the function. Sardarji was collecting money which was being thrown by the guests and deceased was unhappy about this act of Sardarji. On this pretext they had a scuffle and SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 76 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:07:26 +0530 Sardarji stabbed the deceased and fled away from the spot. 67.2 During cross examination of PW32 Inspector Mahabir Singh, he admitted that one Sardarji is visible in the video holding a camera. It is an admission on the part of the prosecution that one Sardarji was part of the videography team. IO further admitted that he did not interrogate that Sardarji.
He could not admit or deny whether Sardarji is a BC of Palam Area or not. The court is not inclined to accept the theory of the defence that murder was committed by Sardarji but IO has committed a blunder by not examining that person as a witness. There is strong possibility that those words in Punjabi language and were recorded in the video, might have been spoken by that Sardarji and if that is the case then he could have thrown light on the issue whether there was any altercation at the time of jaimala and if so, then who all were part of that altercation.
67.3 The court is in dark as to when and by which mode two other associates of the deceased left the marriage function because they came in a Maruti car which was found parked in the parking after the murder. In fact, PW7 Virender has not clarified as to when his colleagues had left the marriage function. If they had come for the function in the same Maruti car then it is expected that they would have plan to go back together in the same Maruti car. In that eventuality Sardarji and the fourth associate ought to have been present with the deceased and PW7 Virender at the time of alleged incident. 67.4 The court is not inclined to embark upon a quest whether Sardarji had anything to do with the murder of the deceased or not but it goes without saying that IO has caused an irreparable loss to the prosecution by not examining these important witnesses. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tomaso's case (discussed supra), prosecution has withheld these two important witnesses without any excuse or logical explanation and therefore, an adverse SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 77 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:07:30 +0530 inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution. 67.5 In Sunil Kundu Vs. State of Jharkhand 2013 (4) SCC 422, while commenting upon the lacunas in the investigation, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"19. We began by commenting on the unhappy conduct of the investigating agency. We conclude by reaffirming our view. We are distressed at the way in which the investigation of this case was carried out. It is true that acquitting the accused merely on the ground of lapses or irregularities in the investigation of a case would amount to putting premium on the depreciable conduct of an incompetent investigating agency at the cost of the victims which may lead to encouraging in perpetrators of crimes. This Court has laid down that the lapses or irregularities in the investigation could be ignored subject to a rider. They can be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and the evidence is of sterling quality. If the substratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored. In this case, the lapses are very serious."
67.6 The present case is a classic example where several lacunas are being left in the investigation. There is no reasonable explanation given by the IO as to why he did not get conducted photography at the time of recovery of buttons, why he did not prepare the rough site plan of the place from where buttons were recovered, why statement of the complainant was not recorded instantly at the hospital at 06:30 AM, why no public persons were joined at any stage in any proceeding, why two associates of the deceased were not examined and why CCTV footage was not seized despite being relevant and available. All these issues are so material in nature that in absence of any logical explanation, they have affected the case of the prosecution in a big way. The follies in the investigation process are fatal for the prosecution and benefit SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 78 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:07:36 +0530 of doubt must go to the accused.
CONCLUSION 68.1 In ordinary circumstances, the above said anomalies when viewed in isolation, would appear to be innocuous, insignificant or inconsequential. However, when viewed as a whole, it raises a question mark upon the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the entire case itself. The doubt becomes even more graver when considered in light of the fact that despite availability, no public witness and important witnesses have not been joined in the case at hand. Further, harsher the punishment stricter should be judicial scrutiny. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Krishan Chand Vs State of HP: (2018) 1 SCC 222. 68.2 In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution version appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
68.3 Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has miserably failed its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as the investigation is having serious lacunas in it and no plausible explanation is forth coming from the IO in this regard. The improbable and unnatural conduct of PW7 Virender is beyond comprehension of this court. His conduct is such that his testimony cannot be relied upon by the court against the accused persons. He did not inform the police for 23 minutes after the stabbing and did not shift the injured to hospital despite having a car just a paces away in the parking lot. He did not disclose SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 79 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.05.31 17:07:40 +0530 the name of the accused persons for a considerable delay of time despite claiming that he was aware about their identities. The absence of blood stains on his body and on his clothes are highly unnatural. The effort of the prosecution to connect accused persons with the murder on the basis of blood stains on the steering of the car, has not paid of. The recovery of three buttons of shirt is a tainted one and totally unreliable. 68.4 Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused persons namely Bhanu Raghav and Mohit Pal are acquitted from committed an offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC.
68.5 Before parting with this case the court is pained to observe that a precious human life has been lost but the prosecution is not able to put up a strong case so that the perpetrator of the crime can be punished to give justice to the deceased. The State machinery is dependent upon the police officials for detection and investigation of the crime but if the police officials act in a negligent manner or they are not skilled enough to conduct an impartial and effective investigation then the ultimate loss is of the victim, their families and State at large. The courts cannot decide cases on the basis of emotions and perceptions and the adjudication is based upon concrete and reliable evidence which has to be collected in an impeachable manner by following all the rules and regulations. The court has full sympathy with the family of deceased Raj Kumar and it has to be accepted that justice could not be done with the deceased and his family.
68.6 As State has failed to dispense justice to the deceased, the liability to pay compensation to family of the deceased lies upon the State itself. Hence, Ld. Secretary, DLSA(North) is hereby requested to initiate proceedings to give SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 80 of 81 PS Alipur Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:07:43 +0530 adequate compensation to the family of deceased as per rules.
68.7 It is ordered accordingly. DHIRENDRA Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.05.31 17:07:48 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 31.05.2025 ASJ:Special Judge (NDPS) (running in 81 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 58535/2016, FIR No. 129/2015 State Vs. Bhanu Raghav & Anr. Page No. 81 of 81 PS Alipur